2002 and by simply glossing over the gross violations of the Forest Act, 1980, the order came to be passed on 16. The Labour Court after referring to the judgments of this Court examined the plea in the claim statements with regard to the date of removal and referred to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Madan Pal Singh v. 1 was to obtain clearance and certificate from Director General Foreign Trade (DGFT) and CITES, wherever required and in the absence of any such permission no approval could be granted by the Dy.
Dalmia in favour of the first respondent. 2002, on behalf of the State Government the very same officer who held the post of Director of Mines and Geology as on 25. It is, however, equally obvious that while [pic]exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment.
2002 to the Regional Deputy Director, Wild Life Protection (WLP). Even so, if the rest of the shares can be said to be held by the public, then the minimum 25 per cent. It was in this context that Read the Full Post shares of the sons of Maganlal, Bipinchandra, Harishchandra and Krishnakumar, were considered. 5 of letter issued by the Dy. Inspector General, Wild Life (W. 2002 approving of the transfer applied for by M/s. 2002, was perfectly justified and the interference with the same by the Division Bench by the order impugned is required to be set aside, in view of the various incongruities which were prevalent in the case on hand.
2002, in the recommendation order dated 06. 1 for import of the aforesaid trophy of stuffed leopard made his first application on 27. (speaking for the majority of the larger Bench) observed: (SCC p. would still be reached. It was on this view that the case was remitted to the Tribunal by the High Court to obtain a further statement whether Maganlal Parbhudas was de facto controlling these three shareholders. Held, that expenditure click through the following web site Suggested Web page page (Suggested Website) which is deductible for the purposes of income-tax under s.
10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is one which must be towards a liability actually existing at the time, but the putting aside of money which may become expenditure on the happening of an event is not expenditure. This application was, however, rejected by the Regional Dy. stated as follows: (SCC at pp. 2001 came forward to recommend for the transfer applied for by M/s. These 984 have been held by the High Court to be shares, which cannot be said to be beneficially held by the public.
So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court you can look here (Get More Information) under Article 226-or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32-is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. When we compare the facts set out in paragraph 15 of the said judgment, when we refer to the facts dealt with by us in this case, we have noted as to how after surrender made by M/s. (underlining is ours) The above judgment throws some light as to how certain excess role played on behalf of the State without any justifiable reasons were brought to the notice of the Court, the Court should not hesitate to set aside such orders in the interest of Rule of Law.
) vide his reference dated 9. Let it not be forgotten that the judicial power conferred on the High Courts and this Court is meant for the protection of the citizens’ fundamental rights, and so, in the existence of the said judicial power itself is necessarily involved the right of the citizen to appeal to the said power in a proper case. 493-494) “If the power of the High Courts under Article 226 and the authority of this Court under Article 32 are not subject to any exceptions, then it would be futile to contend that a citizen cannot move the High Courts or this Court to invoke their jurisdiction even in cases where his fundamental rights have been violated.
In the said circumstances, the order of Read the Full Document learned Single Judge in setting aside the said order dated 16. It was stated in this letter by the Dy. The Directors between them hold 4,695 shares. Director (WLP) vide communication dated 16. Provided further that this sub-section shall not apply to any company in which the public are substantially interested or to a subsidiary company of such a company if the whole of the share capital of such subsidiary company is held by the parent company or by the nominees thereof.
If those shares can be said to fall outside the category of shares beneficially held by the public, then those shares along with the shares held by the Directors reduced the number of shares held by the remaining shareholders to less than 25 per cent. Dalmia had become conclusive as on 31. In Keshav Singh[1964] INSC 209; , (1965) 1 SCR 413 while addressing this issue, Gajendragadkar, C. The existence of judicial power in that behalf must necessarily and inevitably postulate the existence of a right in the citizen to move the Court in that behalf; otherwise the power conferred on the High Courts and this Court would be rendered virtually meaningless.
Director that as per condition no.