top advocates in Supreme Court India, http://supremecourtindia.in/as-the-supreme-court-has-warned/. K, the owner of a grove sold it to the appellant in June 1952. In those circumstances, the court was entitled to conclude that, top advocates in Supreme Court of India the exercise of its case management powers, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the hearing. The Industrial Disputes Act was passed to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes appearing in the Act. The expression “industrial despute” is defined by s.
It is true that the resolution modifying the original resolution dated February 26, 1966 was passed by circulation on March 25, 93 1966. Clause 12(a) requires insurance to be in place for the parties’ joint account. There are no materials on the record to prove that the requirements of s. It was “irrelevant to the scope of the duty of care”: p 218C-D, G. 23(1) (b) was deleted prospectively from October 10, 1954 and by U. ” The argument is that the clause as a whole is a complete code governing financial liability for loss or damage to the ship, and that the words quoted provide for the relief, and the only relief, available as between the head owner and the demise charterer for a total loss.
Thereafter, on the respondent’s failure to deliver possession, K and the appellant filed a suit for respondent’s eviction. However, that is the substance of what she was doing and she was entitled in the circumstances to do it. 200, South India Millowners’ Association & Ors. I shall then consider how, if at all, it applies to this demise charter. Land Reforms (Amending) Act, 1954, s. In 1959, K withdrew from the suit. As we are concerned primarily with the question whether the club comes within the definition of ‘industry’ as given advocates in Supreme Court India the Industrial Disputes Act, we may begin by reading that definition and other provisions which have a bearing upon the question.
When making a distribution, the administrators should retain any sum which, if the Rule had not applied, would otherwise have been distributed to a contributory, best lawyers in Supreme Court of India his capacity of a proving creditor. 23(1)(b) was that the transfers made after July 7, 1949 were void from its inception and neither the prospective deletion nor the retrospective deletion conferred the status of bhumidar on the appellant, and that in any event, K’s withdrawal from the suit must date back to the institution of the suit and therefore the suit must be dismissed.
I readily accept that, if the Rule was simply applied to a distributing administration in its existing terms, it could easily lead to injustice in the way described in those passages. Coimbatore District Textile Workers’ Union and Others [1962] 1 L. Clause 12(c) provides that “all insurance payments for such loss shall be paid to the Mortgagee, if any, in the manner described in the Deed(s) of Covenant, who shall distribute the moneys between themselves, the owners and the charterers according to their respective interests.
57 were not complied with, and s. Any such retention would be kept safe and ready to be paid out appropriately when the final accounts were drawn up, and (save perhaps in these unusual days) the retained money would earn interest. The respondent contended that the effect of s. If A is less than B, then he can be paid (B-A), and A is retained. 80(5) the validity of the resolution was not liable to be questioned on the ground of irregularity which manifestly did not affect the merit of the case.
Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1956, s. This was not a case in which the court did not have jurisdiction to continue with the planned hearing. Any such exercise would inevitably be speculative, and the administrator should be cautious but realistic. It was a case in which the court did not have power to order the CCG to fund what the parents wanted. ” The plea that a resolution passed by the Municipal Council cannot, under the Act, be modified or cancelled within three months is without force.
Their Workmen [1960] 1. , It may be recalled that on March 31, 1966 the “circulation dated 25-3-66 were read, heard and confirmed unanimously. The administrator would have to assess the likely level of dividend, C, and the same exercise would have to be carried out with (C x B) rather than B. This is why in SAAMCO itself Lord Hoffmann had rejected the distinction made by the Court of Appeal between “no transaction” and “successful transaction” cases.
The provisions which are said to exclude a right to recover the value of the ship as damages for breach of clause 29 are clauses 12(a) and (c). 23(1)(b) was deleted retrospectively from the date of commencement of the principal Act with regard to the right of the transferee to compensation and rehabilitation grant. However, in my view, a potential contributory can be protected if the Rule is applied with minor procedural modifications to distributing administrations.
Section 57 of the Act provides that no resolution of a municipal council shall be modified or cancelled within three months after the passing thereof except by a resolution passed in the manner prescribed in that behalf. Section 23(1)(b) of the Act provided that no transfer of any estate after July 7, 1949 shall be recognised for any purpose and the estate shall be deemed to continue to vest in the transferor. The National Tobacco Co.
But in view of the terms of s. Thus, assuming a 100% dividend, if the administrator considers that a creditor’s reasonable maximum potential liability as a contributory, A, is greater than his proved claim, B, then B must be retained. I accept that Eleanor King J did not put it in quite these terms (no doubt reflecting the way the issue was argued before her). 97(2) prohibits an enquiry into the regularity of the procedure for imposition of the tax after a notice under s.
The emphasis advocates in Supreme Court India the Act is primarily upon the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. If the dividend is not 100% (as presumably almost by definition will be the case), then the position is a little more complex. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 was enforced from July 1, 1952. To address this argument, I propose to deal first with the law firms in Supreme Court India relating to rights as between co-insured. Nor did it have power to order the actual care providers to do that which they were unwilling or unable to do.
925, Management of Rajendra Mills Ltd.