There is no doubt that S. The order terminating’ probation was made under r. that is a matter left by the Rules to the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate authorities empowered to pass orders under the relevant Rule. 14 and continued to retain that character. The earliest of her examples was said to have occurred in 2013. 154 is potential but top Chandigarh legal service not compulsive. Mrs Owens duly amended her petition. 34 notwithstanding that there was no dispute in subsequent years and the bonus for the subsequent years is also to be calculated in accordance with the Act so modified.
The intention is to bring such cases under the Act but with some modifications. She cannot have thought that the time allowed for the hearing would enable her to give evidence of more than a few of them. Since these would have to be disclosed, it was practically inevitable that the patent application would have to be made before any trials. It follows, therefore, that Government can exercise its powers under s. In this way, three distinct classes are created which may be summarized still further thus: In respect of establishments which had a history of payment but no dispute was pending on May 29, 1965 the provisions of s.
By alleged reference to her diary, she gave 27 individual examples of the third and fourth allegations in her petition that Mr Owens had been moody and argumentative and had disparaged her in front of others. 34(2) apply a special ratio between the allocable 61 surplus and gross profits for the determination of the quantum of the amount available for payment of bonus. The Board went on to mitigate this principle so as to best lawyers in Chandigarh reflect the fact that in the case of purpose-limited medical patents definitive evidence of therapeutic effect would not be available until clinical trials had been carried out.
The vice in the second part of the order did not either before or after it was cancelled affect the validity of the order terminating the respondent’s probation. The exception was considered necessary because the legality or the propriety of an order having been considered once, it would be an act of supererogation to consider the matter twice. 14 did give rise to a justifiable grievance which the respondent could set up but after that order was cancelled the respondent had no cause for grievance.
This Court, no doubt, realises in dealing with pleas for habeas corpus in such proceedings that citizens are detained under the Rules without a trial, and that clearly is inconsistent with the normal concept of the Rule of best law firms in Chandigarh in a democratic State. We are therefore of the view that the High Court was in error in holding that the order made by the Governor determining the probation of the respondent infringed the protection of Art. establishments in which a dispute was pending on May 29, 1965 in respect of an accounting year not earlier than the accounting year ending in the year 1962 and those in which no such dispute was pending.
It cannot be said that by terminating the probation any penalty was imposed : and if that be the correct view the opinion expressed by the High Court that by passing the order dated December 1, 1958 the Governor was seeking to convert the earlier order of punishment into an order under r. 14 of the Subordinate Revenue Executive Chandigarh legal service (Tahsildars) Rules, 1944 retrospectively, cannot be accepted. Perhaps there was no such example which she could honestly give; or perhaps, on advice, she did not regard it as necessary to do so.
This implied that sufficiency could be demonstrated by the disclosure of material supporting the claimed therapeutic effect which was less than definitive: Rebate of income-tax available to the employer on the amount of bonus paid to the workmen cannot be added to the available surplus of profits determined best law firms in Chandigarh accordance with the Full Bench Formula which should be taken into account only in distributing the available surplus between workmen, industry and employers.
So she chose not to give any specific example of Mr Owens’ behaviour during the first 35 years of the marriage or prior to the date of the initial draft petition. This power can be exercised in all cases except in a case advocate in Chandigarh which a similar power has already been exercised by the Tribunal under s. Power is reposed in Government to intervene to best Chandigarh legal do justice when occasion demands it and of the occasion for its exercise, Government is made the sole judge. In his amended answer Mr Owens admitted some of the alleged examples but sought to place them top legal service in Chandigarh a different context; described some as exaggerated; and professed not to remember others.
If there was a dispute pending in respect of an accounting year not earlier than an accounting year ending in the year 1962, the dispute is to be resolved as laid down in the Act with the special modifications made by s. The Governor initially passed an order determining the probation top legal services in Chandigarh and also passed an order stopping promotion. He entered very few denials. The latter part of the order which the Governor was incompetent to pass under r.