best lawyers in Supreme Court India http://supremecourtindia.in/us-supreme-court-opinions-by-chief-justice-and-year/. Therefore, the position was that the Tea Company, whose windingup had been ordered, was with the Official Liquidator. 15 imposes a prohibition against the entry into a contract on his own account by a member of the association with any person who is not a member of that association, unless the member has secured the consent of such other person and discloses in the note, memorandum or agreement of $ale or purchase that he has bought or sold the goods, as the case may be, on his own account.
” We pass on to consider the next contention of Mr. Even on the basis that the first respondent is considered to be a person, to whom the ownership of the undertaking has been transferred, it will be seen that the claims of the workmen will have to be considered. 121 But from this it does not follow that till the regulations were made or the laws were passed, there could be no appointment or dismissal of the personnel of the administration.
25FF of the Act, when its proviso cannot be invoked. Therefore, the learned Solicitor- General is perfectly justified in his contention that the first respondent cannot be considered to be a successor-in- interest of the Tea Company nor can he be considered to claim through the Receiver, or Liquidator. The Labour Court, in its order under attack, has taken the view that the services of the workmen concerned, have been terminated, under instructions of the Receiver of the Tea Gardens, appointed in the suit, long before the first respondent became owner of the Tea Gardens.
” It is common ground that the Central Government has issued a notification declaring s. as against the Tea Company, in accordance with s. There was, however, a vague suggestion made by the petitioner top advocates in Supreme Court India paragraph 68 of his rejoinder- petition dated July 17, 1967 that “the State Government could not have possibly considered my case, as they considered and even in this counter-affidavit consider Shri Hanuman Sharma and Sri Sultan Singh senior to me by the new type of seniority they have invented for their benefit”.
The prohibition is removed only if two conditions exist-(i) that the note must disclose that the purchase or sale is on the account of the member of the recognised association; and (ii) consent or authority of the other person has been secured independently of the disclosure top advocates in Supreme Court of India the note. (i) The award, Exhibit M-6, dealing with leave and other facilities, not having been terminated by the first respondent, by issue of a notice, as contemplated under s. In the present case, there is no specific allegation by the petitioner in the writ petition that his case was not considered along with respondents 3 & 4 at the time of promotion to the posts of Deputy Inspector General of Police in 1955 or to the rank of Inspector General of Police or Additional Inspector General of Police in 1966.
19(6) of the Act, continues to be in force and, therefore, the question of leave cannot form the subject matter of adjudication. It is also of the view that “the Brahmputra Tea Estate (Receiver in possession)”. The view therefore taken by the High Court that there could be no appointment or removal by the District Council without a law firms in Supreme Court India having been first passed in that behalf under para. What was purchased, by the first respondent, was only the equity of redemption in a part of the assets of the Tea Com- pany, in respect of which the Official Liquidator was still functioning.
3(1)(g) cannot be sustained. , the first respondent, has not been brought on record, nor was it a party to the reference, made by the State Government. On these grounds, the Labour Court held that no relief could be granted, as against the first respondent, and that the reference itself had become infructuous. The appellants entered into the contract with the respondents-who are not members of the association-for buying jute bags on their own account.
(2) any person who enters into any forward contract in contravention of the provisions contained in subsection (4) ‘of section 15 shall on conviction be punishable with fine. and the Tea Gardens of the company, were top advocates in Supreme Court of India the possession and management of tile Receiver, appointed in the mortgage suit. 15(1) of the Act as applicable to forward contracts in jute and jute goods. The purchase of the Tea Gardens, by the first respondent, does not show that the latter has taken over any liabilities, of the previous management, with regard to the claims of the workmen, and that there has been no purchase of the goodwill of the Tea Company.
In our opinion, the authorities concerned would at all relevant times have the power to appoint or remove administrative personnel under the general power of administration vested in them by the Sixth Schedule. is the only party impleaded, and the new management, viz. Where the consent or authority of the other person is secured but not advocates in Supreme Court of India writing, the member has to secure a written confirmation ‘of such consent or authority within three days from the date of such contract.
Agarwala on behalf of the respondents that an objective evaluation of the merit of the officers is made each year and promotion is made on scrutiny of the record- sheets dealing with the competence, efficiency and experience of the officers concerned.