100 necessary to say that hardship, impolicy, or injustice of state laws is not necessarily an objection to their constitutional validity. Plumstead Board of Works (1) where a statute requiring an architect to give a certain certificate which did not provide the procedure as to how the architect was to conduct himself, came up for consideration that, “No doubt, in the (1) 10 A. It was said in Spack man v.
Act on November 21 and 27 and December 21, 1957 respectively. Qua Section 71 of 1872 Act, it was held to be in the form of a safeguard to the mandatory provision of Section 68 to cater to a situation where it is not possible to prove the execution of the Will by calling the attesting witnesses though alive i. If he doubts the Written Down Value of the previous year it is open to him to check out this site up the previous calculations and if he finds any mistake it is open to him to make fresh calculations in accordance with the law applicable including the rules made thereunder.
Therefore the concept that power coupled with the duty enjoined upon the respondents to renew the lease stands eroded by the mandate of the legislation as manifest in 1980 Act in the facts and circumstances of these cases. The rules dealt with a situation prior to the coming into operation of 1980 Act. (xi), namely, the requirement of Central Government under Section 5 of MMDR Act for grant of approval which was again stipulated in Section 2 of the Forest Act and whether compliance of the said provision are mandatory for a mining lease to remain valid.
It was further clarified that Section 71 of Act 1872 would have no application to a case where one attesting witness who alone had been summoned fails to prove the execution of the Will and the other attesting witness though available to prove the execution of the same, for reasons best known, is not summoned before the Court. With that when we come to the next question No. Only in these contingencies by the aid of Section 71, other evidence can be furnished.
Act falls to be considered. At read this article time an industrial dispute in respect of bonus for the relevant year was pending before the Industrial Tribunal (Textile) U. 133 of the Constitution. The appellant, therefore, made three applications before the Tribunal under s. It is on these facts that the question about the construction of s. 2010 was available with it for the purpose of effecting any transfer. ” It is then said that sub-sec. By these applications the appellant prayed that the Industrial Tribunal should accord its approval to the dismissal of the workmen concerned.
On February 18, 1958 the Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to make out a case for dismissing the 208 workmen in question, and so it refused to accord its approval to their dismissal. The words used in the section are ” apparent from the record ” and the record does not mean only the order of assessment but it comprises all proceedings on which the assessment order is based and the Income-tax Officer is entitled for the purpose of exercising his jurisdiction under s.
35 to look into the whole evidence and the law applicable to ascertain whether there was an error. The appellants then applied for and obtained a certificate from index [visit the up coming website] the High Court that the case fulfilled the requirements of Art. The obligation to the society must predominate over the obligation to the individuals. Similarly, question No. if the witnesses either deny or do not recollect the execution of the Will. Dalmia and accepted by the State Government, we do not find any necessity to examine those questions and we leave it open for consideration as and when any need arises for deciding those questions.
Inasmuch as we have held that the said lease was duly surrendered by M/s. The primary duty was to the community and that duty took precedence, in our website opinion, in these cases. That was the primary purpose writ large in the Act of 1980. The question therefore is was it take a look at the site here mistake apparent from the record which the Income-tax Officer has rectified. The present appeal has been filed in pursuance of that certificate. It was submitted that recalculation is not rectifying a mistake which is apparent from the record.
5A, which was introduced into the Act by the Amending Act, offends Art. Accordingly it directed the appellant to reinstate the said workmen to their original jobs with effect from the dates on which they were suspended with continuity of service, and it ordered that the appellant should pay them full wages for the period of unemployment. That question would arise please click the up coming webpage the next webpage (more info) only if the lease hold right of M/s. (xii) whether Section 10 (1) and the second proviso to Section 11 of the MMDR Act as well as Rules 37 and 59 of Mineral Concession Rules mandate to the effect that any transfer applied for under Rule 37 (1)(a) cannot be automatically granted.
‘1980 Act’ was an Act in recognition of the awareness that deforestation and ecological imbalances as a result of deforestation have become social menaces and further deforestation and ecological imbalances should be prevented.