226 and 227 of the Constitution. On the said facts the Court held that as the Government continued the said inams within the meaning of s. Act 2 of 1894 enabled the Government to fix wages for the said office. The Commission had to take into account the quality of the land, natural calamities, and the rotation of crops while determining the yield from land. the exercise of the power may be before or after the commencement of the section. -Bidyabhushan Mohapatra hereinafter called ‘the respondent’-was a permanent 650 non-gazetted employee of the State of Orissa in the Re- gistration Department and was posted at the material time as a Sub-Registrar at Sambalpur.
The Tribunal held an enquiry in the presence of the respondent on two charges (1) relating to five specific heads charging the respondent with having received illegal gratification and (2) relating to possession of means disproportionate to his income as a Sub-Registrar. Thereafter the respondents struck work. The respondent made a detailed submission in rejoinder and contended, inter alia, that the Tribunal held the enquiry in a manner contrary to rules of natural justice.
31(4)(b) inasmuch as it obliged the Commission to apply Schedule C on a mathematical basis, must be struck down as going beyond the rule-making power conferred under the Act. 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 10 (3) of the Act prohibited the continuance of the strike and lockout in the appellants concern. Information was received by the Government of the NRI State of Orissa that the respondent was habitually receiving illegal gratification and that he was possessed of property totally disproportionate to his income.
After consulting the Public Service Commission the Governor of Orissa by order dated September 26, 1957, directed that the respondent be dismissed from service. The finding of the- Tribunal was tentatively approved by the Governor of Orissa and the respondent was called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service as recommended. 4(1) of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1951 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Art.
17, it could enfranchise them. The petitioners pray for a writ or order or direction quashing the said notifica- tions and for issue of a mandamus to the respondents not to apply the said scheme to the petitioners establishment. Though LexLords NRI Legal Services the section came into force from April 1 1956, it was to be used retrospectively to recall rebate on amounts which the law deemed to have been subject of an incorrect relief; and though the recalling of the rebate was after the enactment of the section, the conditions for.
309 of the Constitution. The respondent then applied to the High Court of Orissa by petition under Arts. The Tribunal held that there was reliable evidence to support four out of the five heads in the first charge ‘of corruption’ and also the charge relating to possession of means disproportionate to the income and recommended that the respondent be dismissed from service. The case of the respondent was referred by order of the Governor of Orissa to the Administrative Tribunal constituted under r.
There may arise cases in which even though the burden lies on the defendants to prove their case of undue influence they may establish it from admissions made by the plaintiff or his witnesses NRI or from other NRI Legal Services by LexLords evidence, and without giving their own testimony, but this, in our judgment, is not such a case. The judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. (2) Even assuming that the decision of the High Court dated March 3, 1955, was binding on the Collector, that would not affect his jurisdiction in the present case to decide whether the goods were liable to confiscation.
The petitioners challenge the constitutionality of the scheme aforesaid, and the section of the Act in pursuance of which it was brought into existence. 777 Held, (1) that the amount advanced NRI for the purchase of shares was of a capital nature and, therefore, the balance was not allowable as an expenditure under s 10 (2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as it was not the business of the assessee company to buy agencies and sell them; and in any event the amount was expended in 1948 and not in the year of account ending December 31, 1951.
Per, Hidayatullah and Raghubar Dayal,JJ. The other order which was under s. 35 (10) the only condition was that the declaration of the dividends must be after the grant of the rebate. Regulation XXIX of 1802 enabled the Government to obtain directly the services from the karnams who were previously under the control of the zamindars. inter alia, for a writ quashing the “‘entire proceedings before the Tribunal beginning from the charges and culminating in the order of dismissal” and directing the State of Orissa to forbear from giving effec to the order of dismissal dated September 26, 1957, 651 and for a declaration that he be deemed to have continued in his post as Sub-Registrar.
By one of these orders the Government referred the dispute to Industrial Tribunal under s. The Government at this stage issued two orders. As salaries were fixed for the kamams who were enjoying the land in lieu of their services, the Government NRI directed the enfranchisement of the said lands.