Thereupon the appellant filed the aforesaid petition in the High Court. No one, as a matter of fact, at the moment thought that when he was leaving Pakistan for India or vice versa that he was doing so for ever or that he was for ever abandoning the place of his ancestors. That is one reason why we think that the Constitution-makers intended to give what we have called the wider meaning to the word “migrated” in Articles 6 and 7. Chemicals Private Limited.
, but advised them to apply again after six months. HELD:(i) There was no merit in the contention that the High Court gave relief founded on deceit whereas the respondents cause of action best advocates in Chandigarh was based on a breach of contract. lawyer 5 before he can be a citizen of India while the other 712 -would not have to legal service satisfy this condition if he falls within Art. 6 was dealing with an abnormal situation and therefore ,did away with the concept of domicile by the use of the non obstante clause therein.
The certified copy of the judgment was furnished to the petitioners on January 18, 1965. But we do not see anything legal services in Chandigarh strange in it. As aforesaid, the High Court delivered its judgment and ,passed the abovmentioned order allowing the respondent’s appeal on December 18, 1964. ” Another matter which must also be kept in mind is that Arts. On a representation by M / s. In the case of the other man the necessity of domicile is certainly obviated on our interpretation of Art.
families were sent from one place to another for the sake of safety. It is this order which is impugned in this appeal. In this case the employer showed the reason for the dismissal, namely the non-disclosure, and that it related to Ms Reilly’s conduct. The petitioners however waited for the certified copy of the said order which was yet not furnished to them. The first part of the inquiry, governed by subsections (1) to (3), is whether the employer has shown both the reason for the dismissal and that the reason relates to the employee’s conduct or falls within another part of subsection (2) or otherwise justifies dismissal.
Most of those displaced from West Pakistan had no permanent homes top advocates in Chandigarh India where they could go and take up abode. The result according to that view would be that:- (i)if the petitioners had waited till July 17, 1965 and filed their application annexing also the certified copy of the said order their application would have been within time as they would have been entitled to exclude the time for obtaining it; The High Court however observed, that if the petitioners had annexed the certified copy of the said order furnished to them on July 17, 1965 they would have been entitled to exclude the, time taken in obtaining it ,from the period of Iimitation under 49 s.
They overnight became refugees, living in camps in Pakistan or in India. The Committee rejected the application of M/s. Later policies of the Pakistan Government that prevented people from going back to their homes cannot be taken into consideration in determining the intention of the people who migrated at the relevant moment. – On July 17, 1965, a certified copy of ‘the said order was furnished to the petitioners but they did not annex it to their application for leave as it was already filed.
As the certified copy of the said order was not finalised and was not ready the petitioners filed the said application for leave on May 10, 1965; annexing thereto the certified ,copy of the judgment only. The High Court as stated above dismissed the petition holding that the Assistant Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction to hold the inquiry. It was clear from the pleadings that a claim on the basis of misrepresentation was made in the plaint, denied by the appellant in the written statement and argued in the Courts below.
‘In the hypothetical example the first person would have no difficulty in establishing his domicile in India for the very assumption that he was born in India and lived in India all along would prove his ,domicile. The second appellant once more protested, this time to the Prime Minister but that was rejected. That is undoubtedly so. As stated earlier, the High, Court dismissed the application by its order dated-August 17, 1965, on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
<img src="https://simranlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2f.png" style="max-width:450px;float:right;padding:10px advocate Chandigarh 0px 10px 10px;border:0px;”>, the Committee reconsidered the matter and recommended the grant of licence to M/s. 6 but that is because Art. [96 G-H] (ii)The High Court was right in holding that the appellant was liable lawyer in Chandigarh damages for the loss incurred by the respondent. On December 19, 1964 the peti- tioners applied for certified copies of the said judgment and the said order. 12(2) of the Limitation Act. The first named person would have to satisfy the requirement of domicile at the commencement of the Constitution under Art.
These curious consequences are said to be illustrated by the case of two persons, one of whom was born in what is now India and has all along lived there and another person who though born in what is now India went to live top legal service in Chandigarh areas now in Pakistan and then moved back to areas in what is now India. It is said that curious consequences would follow if the intention of residing permanently in one territory or another when the migration took place is not inherent lawyers in Chandigarh these two Articles.
A tribunal’s inquiry into whether a dismissal is unfair is governed by section 98 of the Act. 113 On September 6, 1962, the Assistant Charity Commissioner rejected that contention.