advocates in Supreme Court India – http://supremecourtindia.in/and-lets-not-forget-that-the-supreme-court-leads/. express or implied, were fulfilled and includes L/P(F)7SCI-10 (a) 774 other additional remuneration, if any, paid at intervals not exceeding two months, but does not include- (a) any contribution paid by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund, or under this Act; held the office of Chancellor. the facts were: The assessees were an electric supply company. ” The Municipality entered possession and made certain constructions which were used for its offices and for shops.
Therefore the findings of the Tribunal that the respondent was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses during the domestic enquiry, and, that he was prejudiced in his defence because he was not permitted to have the assistance of the Union, are both erroneous. It was also recited top lawyers in Supreme Court India the deed that best law firms in Supreme Court India the property conveyed there was “a Samadhi (grave) of Nagabawa. Ibrahim vacated the office of Chancellor of the University, Sardar Ujjal Singh, Governor of Punjab.
14 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898, terminating with immediate effect “the services” of the appellant “from the office of Vice- Chancellor of the Kurukshetra University”. During the war the government requisitioned an electricity generating plant of the assessees under r. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal(1). The Charity Commissioner declared that there was a public trust, that the Municipality was the trustee thereof, and that the property was transferred in the Municipality for the benefit of members of the public interested in the Samadhi of Nagabawa; but he held that there was no such institution known as Johari Panch and that the property had not been used for the benefit of that community.
83(1) of the Defence of India Rules. … The test of whether words that do not specifically name the claimant refer to him or not is this: Are they such as reasonably in the circumstances would lead persons acquainted with the claimant to believe that he was the person referred to? Thereafter, the Municipality sued for a decree for delivering possession of a part of the property against a Sadhu who had unlawfully.
A property was conveyed to the respondent-Municipality by a deed “for the purpose of Sarvajanik Kam (public purpose) as it has been utilised uptodate for shelter of Atit, Abhyaqat, Sadhu, Sant, etc. best lawyers in Supreme Court India appeal, this Court, Held: The appeal must fail. The appellant submitted his representation, and shortly thereafter filed a petition in the High Court of Punjab for a writ top lawyers in Supreme Court India the nature of mandamus quashing the order and the notice dated March, 31, 1966. The High Court rejected the petition filed by the appellant.
The Charity Commissioner appealed to the High Court, which reversed the order of the District Court and restored the order of the Charity Commissioner. “The question in all cases is whether the words might be understood by reasonable people to refer to the claimant, subject to the qualification that where the words are published to persons who have special knowledge the issue will be decided by reference to what reasonable persons possessing that knowledge would understand by them.
The Survey Officer declared the Municipality to be the owner of the property and not a trustee for the Johari Panch. In Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. The Secretary of the Municipality admitted that in the property there existed a temple of the Joharis and that the members of that community had the right to visit the temple at fixed times but that they had no other right. 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act was filed for a declaration that the property was settled top lawyers in Supreme Court India favour of the Municipality for the benefit of the Johari Panch and that the property be registered as property of a public trust under the Act.
Thereupon, an application under s. 1 to the Kurukshetra University Act, 1956, read with s. On March 31, 1966, the Chancellor Sardar Ujjal Singh ordered that the appellant be Suspended from the office of Vice-Chancellor, and by another order the Chancellor issued a notice requiring the appellant to show Cause why his services as Vice-Chancellor of the Kurukshetra University be not terminated. In appeal, the District Court set aside the order of, the Charity Commissioner.
(22) ‘wages’ means all remuneration paid or payable in cash to an employee, if the terms of contract of employment. Later, top law firms in Supreme Court India survey proceedings members of the Johari Panch claimed that they had entrusted their temple to the Municipality for administering it for the community, but the compound belonged to them and that the Municipality was merely a trustee thereof. 8, 1966 the Chancellor passed an order in exercise of the power under sub-cl.
occupied it and the suit was decreed. The petition was then amended by the appellant. 1966, terminating the services of the appellant was also claimed. and a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ calling for the record and quashing the order dated May 8. Against that 437 order, with certificate granted by the High Court, this appeal has been preferred.