72(2) of the 1961 Act, and it is here that the aspect of proper construction of these provisions arises. Having regard to the nature best Chandigarh law firms of the charges framed and the character and volume of evidence led, it is difficult to resist the appellant’s argument that the failure to frame charges has- led to prejudice; and it is not at all easy to accept the respondent’s contention that the double opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses which is available to an accused person under the warrant procedure top Chandigarh advocates is not a matter of substantive and valuable benefit to him.
Feeling aggrieved by the award, the appellants in all the appeals sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for re- determination of the compensation made by the LAO. one of such deductions pertains to depreciation allowance at the prescribed rate of percentage of the written down value of the business asset; and this is provided in s. Up to this stage of computation, no question of either carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years or carry forward of unabsorbed business losses of earlier years arises.
32(1) of best legal services in Chandigarh the 1961 Act. Besides, it is necessary to recall that s. The denial of this opportunity must, (1) [1952] INSC 30; [1952] S. It needs no special emphasis that the appellate court has the sacrosanct duty to evaluate, appreciate and consider each material aspect brought on record before rendering the judgment. under the Act and in actuality, only 2-1/2 per cent. 24(2) of the 1922 Act or by s. 2002 and accordingly enhanced the rate of the compensation from Rs.
10(2)(vi) of the 1922 Act and in s. In our opinion, none of the sections considered here, even viewed separately, is ultra vires. for every maund of sugar sold in India. ) it was not likely to make it very hard for the owners, who were in the meantime breaking this loss at the rate of 50 nP. Learned counsel for Chintoo Singh (A-5) submitted that legal in Chandigarh the test identification parade, PW2 has not identified Chintoo Singh (A-5) and her identification of A-5 in the open court is unreliable and without proper appreciation of the flaws in the prosecution case, courts below erred legal service in Chandigarh convicting the accused.
The position legal then is that as from October 1, 1950, the three cases against the appellant should have been tried according to the warrant procedure. In other words, the normal accountancy principle has to be applied in arriving at the net income from business for that year by debiting the current year’s depreciation. In other words, the reference Court held that the appellant was entitled to legal services in Chandigarh get compensation for his land at the rate of Rs. 36(1) of the Act prescribed the application of the summons procedure in the trial of specified offences only in dangerously disturbed areas; and so, unless it is shown that the relevant area could be treated as a dangerously disturbed area at the material time, s.
10(2)(vi) read with proviso (b) to s. That is sacred duty of a Judge; and the same gets more accentuated when the matter is in appeal assailing the defensibility of the conviction in a corruption case. 11/- per Square feet to Rs. It was submitted that Sunil Kumar Singh (PW8) on his own has requested Ranjeet Kumar Ram(A-1) and Sanjay (A- 4) to accompany him to pay the alleged ransom and merely because A-1, A-2 and A-4 accompanied PW8, they are being falsely implicated.
The question is whether any deviation from this normal rule of accountancy is contemplated by proviso (b) to s. Be it noted, the appeal has been heard by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and the appeal assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed under the various provisions of the 1988 Act. 10(2)(vi) is in two parts and provides for two things; its first part provides for a carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and its second part provides for clubbing the said carried forward depreciation with the current year’s depreciation and deeming the aggregate to be the current year’s depreciation.
36(1) would be inapplicable. In other words, the adoption of the summons procedure would be justified only so long as the area in question could be validly treated ,as a dangerously disturbed area and it is therefore pertinent to enquire whether at the relevant time the area top legal service in Chandigarh question was duly and validly notified to be a dangerously disturbed area. The reference Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced, partly answered the reference in favour of the appellants by award dated 15.
It is clear that, at the stage where the trial stood on the material date, the whole of the prosecution evidence had not been led and so there was no difficulty in framing charges against the appellant in the respective cases and thereafter continuing the trial accord- ing to the warrant procedure. However, carrying forward of the unabsorbed depreciation and the deeming provision in proviso (b) are not absolute but are subject to the proviso (b) to s. legal services in Chandigarh other two appeals, the reference Court by awards passed on different dates enhanced the compensation and fixed it between Rs.