IV of 1932) and the by-laws of the Association which fall to be considered by us may now be referred to:- Section 8(1) (Bombay Cotton Contracts Act, 1932): The -provisions of the Bombay Cotton Contracts Act, 1932 (Bom. 677 at 683); The State of Bombay v. We are informed by learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Appellants have undergone about Learn Even more Here than two months imprisonment. Alternatively, it was urged that if the Standing Orders did not apply in the case of the respondent as was the respondent’s case, then the Ordinary law of master and servant applied, and the only remedy of the respondent was to sue the Company in damages for wrongful dismissal.
The, State of Madras, (11953] S. At this stage PW12 Sarojini stood in front of the door and requested the accused not to beat her husband. The Appellant – Jujarsinh is, as of today, about 76 years old. Sale deed is not got executed from the 1st defendant who is admittedly the holder of the general power of attorney from click the up coming article 1st defendant they said (this guy) and Subramanya Shetty, who were the owners of the suit schedule properties on 02-09-67.
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. Further, it is pertinent to note Going you can try here (Learn Even more Here) that though it is mentioned in Ex. but none of the witnesses P. All the accused were trying to break the door and remove the galvanized sheets on the roof. iv) Tanaji somehow managed to run away and went towards the house of Hemla. 1 that the plaintiffs were required to make some arrangements regarding the amount to purchase the stamp papers and the registration fees etc.
Almost 27 years have passed by. That brings us to the only other contention urged on behalf of the appellants. Tanaji managed to enter the house of Maruti S/o Hemla. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court 466 at Nagpur in which he prayed for the issue of appropriate writs or directions quashing the orders of suspension and termination dated December 5, 1955, and December 7, 1955, respectively and asking for certain other reliefs.
It was argued that Section 364A to the extent it denied to the Courts the discretion to award a sentence other than death or life imprisonment was ultra vires of the right to life guaranteed to the appellants under Article 21 of the Constitution. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to other cases and simultaneously we also clearly state that our observations in this case are only meant for purpose of setting aside the order granting bail and would have no impact or effect during the trial.
226 of the Constitution for quashing the orders passed against him or for reinstatement, etc. visit this web page link petition was heard by a learned single Judge on certain preliminary objections raised by the present appellants, and, by an order dated April 14, 1956, he upheld the preliminary objections and dismissed the petition. We are informed by learned Counsel for the Appellant – Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall that Gulmahmad is suffering from gangrene and has undergone surgery.
Support for that proposition was drawn from the decision of this Court in Mithu etc. Jerry Buckley Helm [1983] USSC 156; 463 US 277, 77 Led 2d 637, 103 S Ct 3001, the US Supreme Court was dealing with a case where Helm was found guilty of what is described as uttering a no account check for 100 dollars, ordinarily punishable with imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of 5000 dollars but was sentenced under the recidivist statute of South Dakota to undergo imprisonment for life.
The preliminary objections taken were these: it was urged that the service of the respondent was terminated in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Company, approved by the relevant authorities under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (XX of 1946), hereinafter referred to as the central Act, and also under the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (C.
and Berar Act XXlll of 1947), hereinafter called the local Act; and if the respondent had any grievance against the said Standing Orders, his only remedy was to get the Standing Orders amended as provided for in the relevant Act, but he had no right to move the High Court under Art. The expression ‘sale of goods’ has always been understood by the Supreme Court in the sense, of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
The incident, in question, took place as back as on 29/6/1987. All these years, the Appellants must have suffered tremendous mental trauma and anguish. All the accused were following him. 2 is at large, he shall be taken into custody forthwith; and if he is still in custody because of certain other cases, he shall not be admitted to bail in connection with the present case. Both the Appellants are in jail. The question that fell for determination was whether the sentence was disproportionate to the crime committed by Helm.
The Appellants have lost their jobs and all retiral benefits. Document in the office of the concerned/Sub-registrar Pandavapura but no reasons assigned as to why the reg. On these preliminary objections the learned Judge held (1) that the respondent was not an employee within the meaning of the Standing Orders and therefore his case was not governed by the Standing Orders; On January 2, 1956, the respondent filed a petition under Art.