The learned Special Judge, though inclined not to give the adjournment, made an order giving an adjournment 206 of three weeks on December 3, 1955, on the ground that ” the Special Police Establishment Office might not have any grievance on that account “. The Income-tax Officer did not proceed in accordance with s. By the said order the learned Judge, presumably an officer different from the one who gave the adjournment in 1955, disallowed the objection of the accused on the ground that on the date when the Magistrate gave the sanction, there were many papers in connection with a case against the accused, on observing which the Magi- strate could have satisfied himself whether-there was a prima facie case or not against the accused and that there was no reason to believe that at the time of giving the sanction, the Magistrate did not peruse the papers.
nTaking the income tax returns of the deceased for the assessment years 2005- 06 and 2006-07, the High Court calculated average of the same and taken the income at Rs. It appears that the Special Judge intended to take evidence on the question of delegation of power of investigation, top Chandigarh legal but the prosecution applied for adjournment on the ground that an appeal had been filed in the High Court against a similar order directing the prosecution to give evidence on the said question and the same was pending there.
5(2) of the Act and s. The Additional Commissioner of Labour is the only competent authority who is the delegatee of the State Government as per the notification dated 9. The State, preferred the present appeal against the said order of the High Court. The appellant company was incorporated in the United Kingdom, with its registered office best lawyer in Chandigarh London and its business in the United Kingdom consisted of stores and groceries, including tea which represented only about 10% of its business there.
In that case the assessee was carrying on business at Calcutta and he was sought to be assessed at Kanpur and an objection was taken to the Income- tax Officer, Kanpur, making the assessment. To this conference the representatives of the Federation or the Union were, however, not invited. In the present case no question has been raised as to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer who made the assessment and apart from that the order was made by the Central Board of Revenue under s.
On August 21, 1957, the learned Special Judge made an order discharging Shri Mool Chand, the top legal service in Chandigarh pointsman, and charging Shri Mubarak Ali, the Assistant Station Master, under s. The High Court came to the conclusion that the Sub-Inspector applied for permission ten days after investigation had started and that the Magistrate did not satisfy himself that there Chandigarh lawyers were good and sufficient reasons for authorising the officer of a lower- rank to conduct the investigation but had given the permission as a mere matter of routine.
Chapter V of the University Act deals with the ‘Academic Council’, the Faculties, the Boards and Studies, the Finance Committee and other Authorities. The accused preferred a Revision against the said order to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Commissioner of Income-tax (1). The non-consideration of the claim made by the respondent-Union on behalf of the concerned workmen by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour at the time of refusing to pass an order of reference, not only vitiates the impugned order in the writ petition on account of non application of mind by the alleged delegatee of the State Government but also vitiated in law for the reason that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is not the competent officer to make an order of reference to either the Industrial Tribunal or the Industrial Tribunal.
Such Authorities are entrusted with administrative as well as quasi-judicial functions. Seven days thereafter, on January 21, 1955, the Sub- Inspector filed an application before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Gwalior, asking for permission to investigate the offence under the aforesaid sections. Its operations in India were carried on by a branch with its head office in Calcutta, and the business there consisted mainly lawyers in Chandigarh the sale of ” packeted ” tea throughout India.
lawyers in Chandigarh the result, the High Court set aside the order of the Special Judge with a direction that in order to rectify the defects and cure the illegality he should order the Deputy Superintendent of Police to carry on the investigation himself while the case remains pending on his file “. ) speaking for the Bench succinctly stated the law thus at pages 549 and 550: CCE, Hyderabad [(1994) 2 SCC 428 : JT (1994) 1 SC 545] , one of us (B.
It appears from the record that soon after the case was taken up for trial, the respondent filed objections questioning, inter alia, the validity of the order of the Additional District Magistrate giving permission to the Sub-Inspector to make the investigation. But the scope of the objections is not clear as they have not been placed before us. Every Chapter contains a specific provision conferring a power on the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of that Chapter.
The relevant portion of the said provisions reads as under Section 23 relates to the Academic Council and Section 24 deals with the Constitution of the Academic Council. This agreement was the result of several meetings between the representatives of the Bank and the Labour Department of the Central Government and it was reached on or about May 9, 1951. The Indian Branch had no subscribed capital nor any reserves, and the capital used in India was money advanced from the company’s fund in England.
2003 issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of Maharashtra and therefore, he alone could have passed an order of reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act. We do not know what transpired between December 3, 1955, and the date of disposal of the objections by the Special Judge, i. After making deductions towards income-tax, professional tax and income from house property, the High Court calculated the net income of deceased at Rs. This, however, was subject to the reservation that the number of such employees was not to exceed 150 and that their case,-, would be referred by the Central Government for adjudication by a tribunal.
On this ground itself the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is justified in quashing the order of refusal to make an order of reference regarding the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. 64(3) and therefore it was held that assessment made by him was without jurisdiction. 161 of the Indian Penal Code. This conference led to an agreement as a result of which the Bank undertook to reinstate all its employees who had taken part in the strikes except those to whose reinstatement it had ” positive objections”.
State Electricity Board v. The record does not disclose what further steps were taken by the Sub-Inspector after he obtained the said permission from the Additional District Magistrate. See also Seth Kanhaiyalal v. Thus, the order of refusal to make an order of reference of the existing industrial dispute between the parties to the Industrial Tribunal is void ab initio in law as the same has not been exercised by competent officer as the delegatee of the State Government. In the latest decision top advocates in Chandigarh A.
64(5) becomes operative and sub-ss. On October 1, 1955, a charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Indore. The Delhi office of its Indian branch controlled the salesmen and other employees employed in the Punjab, Delhi State, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, but had no connexion with the export side of the business. To carry out the objects of the Act, the State Government is authorized to create a hierarchy of officers such as the State Transport Authority, the Regional Transport Authority, the Registering Authority, etc.
Chapter X deals with miscellaneous matters.