So, they concluded that, inasmuch as the appellant railway was not opened, in accordance with the provisions of the Railways Act, it had been, from its inception, and it continued to be, not a railway, but only a tramway. The learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court, by their judgment, dated September 10, 1965, dismissed 246 the writ petition. Implicit in this argument was that, in the case of someone who was not a settled migrant, the question of a state’s negative obligation not to act in violation of that person’s article 8 rights did not arise because access to those rights NRI Lawyers could only be obtained by such a person by showing that the state had a positive obligation to grant leave to remain.
NRI Legal services 3567 of 1965, in the High Court of NRI Legal services Allahabad, challenging the levy of terminal tax and claimed exemption, under item 2, of Schedule B, referred to earlier. On February 28, 1961, the appellant company loaded 13 more wagons and cleared them. On this line of reasoning, the High Court further held that in the rules framed by the Municipal Board, the expression ‘railway’ must be intended to refer only to ‘railways’ coming under the Railways Act, and could not include a ‘tramway’, like the appellant, opened under the Tramways Act.
Section 7 only applied to properties other nrillegalservices than those which have vested automatically in the Custodian. Such a vesting cannot be reopened under the Cen- tral Ordinance or the Central Act for it has already vested thereunder by a fiction. These wagons were sealed by the railway administration and railway receipts were issued to the appellant company. his interest in the partnership business immediately vested under the Ordinance in the Custodian.
10 The Government has provided additional funding towards DHPs following the introduction of the benefit cap. Parliament May do all kinds of things, which were never intended, under this unfettered power and may, for example, abolish elected legislatures, abolish the President or change the present form of Government into a Presedential type like the United States. 368 is held to confer full to amend each and every part of the Constitution as has been held in Sankari Prasad’s case(1).
So it is urged that, we should,interpret Art. Then, in para 436, it nrillegalservices is said : “So, even when the carriage charges are paid by a siding owner who has entered into an express agreement to pay a fixed or ascertainable sum for the private siding services, he may still refer the matter to the Railway Rates Tribunal. In consequence, the claim of the appellant, for exemption, was, according to the High Court, rightly rejected by the authorities.
Lastly an argument had been advanced which we may call the argument of fear. It is their view that when a tramway and a railway, are both separately defined in an Act, a tramway cannot also be a railway. And where the Railway Rates Tribunal have by order fixed charges for NRI Legal services not included in conveyance and terminals, as long as the order stands unchallenged the company may only exact the charges fixed by the Tribunal and not what the company thinks are reasonable charges”. This additional funding is intended to support those claimants affected by the benefit cap who, as a result of a number of complex challenges, cannot immediately move into work or more affordable accommodation.
Although the argument was not raised in the present appeal, in the subsequent case of R (Agyarko) v Secretary of State for the Home Department it was submitted for the Secretary of State that the effect of Jeunesse was that it was necessary for an applicant who was not a settled migrant to show that his or her circumstances were “sufficiently weighty” to oblige the state NRI Lawyers to allow him or her to remain before article 8 was engaged in their case. It is said that if Art.
The result was the dismissal of the appellant’s writ petition, by the High Court. The company also obtained gate pass. In para 434, the principle noted is that “loading and unloading, covering and uncovering in classes 7 to 21, though performed at the private siding, are services otherwise provided for in the standard charges, and the company must charge for these either the standard or an exceptional rate. Therefore no question of issuing further notice or making a declaration that the said interest was evacuee property under s.
In other words, the applicant had to show that the state was under a positive obligation to admit the applicant. In this connection, the learned Judges adverted to the Railways Act, which defines both the terms ‘tramway’ and ‘ railway’. [142 E-G] (ii) It followed that the partners had no interest in the share of ‘A’ in the firm which had vested in the Custodian. This automatic vesting was continued by Central Ordinance 27 of 1949 and Central Act 31 of 1950 by the deeming provisions contained therein.
They were of the view that the appellant company was not ‘a railway’, but ‘a tramway’ constructed tinder the Tramways Act. On February 27, 1961, the appellant company loaded 20 wagons of paper after effecting clearance of these goods by payment of the excise duty under r. 52 of the Excise Rules. Constitution or do away with the federal structure altogether. 7(1) of the Ordinance arose.