(emphasis supplied by us) In Dhodha House (supra), the question which is posed before us did not come up for consideration and it has been observed that the Act provides for an additional forum. The appellant then applied for and obtained please click the up coming post (Click On this page) a certificate from the said High Court under Art. I shall assume for the purpose of this petition that the affidavit filed by the Chief Controller represents what all had taken place between him and the representatives of the Company.
132(1) of the Constitution. 515 of 1955, arising out of the judgment and visit this weblink (Click On this page) order dated October 31, 1955, of the Special Judge, Anti-corruption, Lucknow, in Criminal Case No. , ‘ reasonable opportunity ” and ” of being heard They imply that when the charge is one of fraud the affected party is entitled to know the particulars of fraud alleged, to inspect the documents on the basis of which fraud is imputed to him and to a personal hearing to explain his case and to absolve himself of the charge made against him.
The argument is that there is not much room for relaxing the onus of proof where the accused is called upon to sources – simply click the up coming internet page – prove the contrary under s. We are prepared to assume in favour of the appellant that even if the explanation given by him is a reasonably probable one the presumption raised against him can be said to be rebutted. The notice dated September 24, 1958, issued to the petitioners laconically states that ‘the licences granted by the Joint Controller to the Company were fraudulently obtained and therefore it was notified that the Government of India, in exercise of the powers specified in paragraph 9 of the Order proposed to cancel the said licences unless sufficient cause against the proposed action was furnished to the Chief Controller within ten days of the date of the issue of the notice.
Such additional forum was provided so as to enable a plaintiff who may not be otherwise in a position to file a suit at different places where the copyright was violated. On these findings the petition filed by the first respondent was allowed, the impugned order of forfeiture was set aside and the proceedings taken against the first respondent under s. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 11, 1957, of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Lucknow, in Criminal Appeal No.
” We also think that the Tribunal should have permitted the amendment because the ground of attack had been clearly made out and the only mistake committed by the appellant was not to put it in proper words,” In short, the view of the High Court was that sub. We do not think it necessary to decide this point in the present appeal. But is the explanation. The question falls to be decided only on the affidavits filed by the parties. In this connection, we may advert again to the prosecution case according to which the deceased was repeatedly crushed under the wheels of the tractor.
Thus, once a licence is issued under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Telegraph Act, the licence becomes a contract between the licensor and the licensee. A decision is not to be construed like a statute nor by inferential process it can be assumed that this Court has decided the question also which is before this Court in the instant cases. Without these elementary safeguards provided by the authority, the opportunity to be heard given to the licensee becomes an empty formality.
Consequently, the terms and conditions of the licence including the definition . We have anxiously considered the aforesaid observations made and the object of the Act, we find that the interpretation made by us does not militate against the observations made by this Court in Dhodha House (supra), the precise question which is before us, was not involved in the aforesaid case. With this background I shall scrutinize the relevant facts to ascertain whether any such reasonable opportunity was given to mouse click the up coming post petitioners in this case.
100(1)(d)(i) of the Act and what was asked for by way of amendment was only a clarification of that ground. para (d) contained the ground under s. are part of a contract between the licensor and the licensee. Only because, its goods are being sold at a place would thus evidently not mean that it carries a business at that place. 603 court shall presume a fact it shall record such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner Company sent a telegram through their Solicitors requesting the Chief Controller not to publish the said notification.
The counsel for the appellant submits that ante mortem injuries are in conflict with ocular account. In Union of India (1975) 1 SCC 737 and Panna Lal (1975) 2 SCC 633, this Court held – 40. Clause 10 clearly and without any ambiguity describes the principles of natural justice by using the three well-known words and phrase, viz. A corporation in view of Explanation appended to Section 20 of the Code would be deemed to be carrying on business inter alia at a place where it has a subordinate office.