10(1), the legislature would have made a specific provision in that behalf and would have prescribed appropriate NRI Legal Services limitations on the exercise of the said power. It would show that when the efforts of the conciliation officer fail to settle a dispute, on receipt of the conciliation officer’s report by the appropriate government, the government would normally refer the dispute for adjudication ; but if the government is not satisfied that a reference should be made, it is required to communicate its reasons for its decision to the parties concerned.
13/01/2015 that he wants to engage a new counsel as his subsequent conduct does not support this submission. In our opinion, if the legislature had intended to confer on the appropriate government the power to cancel an order made under s. This we say so for the reasons that firstly, there is no ground much less sufficient ground to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the appellant wherein she said that the appellant and respondent No. 2012 during counting of votes. If the appellant’s argument is accepted, it would mean that even after the order is made by the appropriate government under s.
, denial of fair opportunity on account of incompetence of earlier counsel or on account of expeditious proceedings; (ix) The High Court has not rejected the reasons given by the trial court nor given any justification for permitting recall of the witnesses except for making general observations that recall was necessary for ensuring fair trial. The claim of the applicant that he was unwilling to continue with his earlier counsel is also nothing but a bundle of lie in as much as the accused never submitted before the court that he wants to change his counsel.
Indeed, counting of votes is always done in presence of the candidates and their agents and in this case also it was done in presence of the candidates, who contested the election. This report must contain a full statement of the relevant facts and circumstances and the reasons on account of which in the opinion of the officer the settlement could not be arrived at. Where the appropriate 1202 government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefor.
42(2) imposed a charge only on a business carried on by a non-resident and that therefore no tax could be imposed on the business of the NRI Legal Services appellant, and (2) that it was a condition for the levy of a charge under that subsection that the non-resident must carry on business with the resident and that in the instant case it was not satisfied, NRI Legal Services as all that the non-resident companies did was only to get their ships repaired by the appellant company: It was contended for the appellant (1) that S.
42(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The appellant then filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. This observation is contrary to the reasoning of the High Court in dealing with the grounds for recall, i. The tribunal agreed with the view taken by the income-tax authorities, confirmed their conclusion and dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellant. I may also add that before proceeding with the case further, I had personally asked the accused in the open court whether he wants to continue with his counsels and only on getting a reply in the affirmative, were the proceedings continued further.
The accused cannot be permitted to take advantage of his submissions made on the first date i. Held, further, that on the evidence in the case the confes- sion of P was voluntary and true and was strongly corroborated in material particulars both concerning the general story told in the confession concerning the crime and the appellant’s connection with crime. Alok Kumar was acting as per his instructions and having NRI Legal Services interview with him.
10(1), the said government can cancel the said order without giving any reasons. Rather, it is revealed from the record that the earlier counsel, Sh. This provision imposes on the appropriate government an obligation to record its reasons for not making a reference after receiving a report from the conciliation officer and to communicate the said reasons to the parties concerned. Sub-section (5) then lays down that if, on a consideration of the report, the appropriate government is satisfied that there is a case for NRI Legal Services reference to a board, labour court, tribunal or national tribunal, it may make such a reference.
This position is clearly inconsistent with the policy underlying the provisions of s. The aforesaid discussion leads us to conclude that the impugned judgment of the High Court is erroneous and warrants to be set aside. We, accordingly, allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order and hold that the appellants shall be entitled to the benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. The aforesaid proceedings clearly bely the claim of the accused/applicant that the case has been proceeding at a hurried pace or that he was not duly represented by a defence counsel of his choice.
2012 by the Returning Officer. It NRI Legal Services thus appears that the endeavor of the accused by filing this application is only to delay the proceedings despite the fact that all along the trial his request for adjournment have been duly considered and allowed and he has been duly represented by a private counsel of his choice. 1 herein (election petitioner) including their voting agents and other persons were throughout present in-person on 17.
After reading the aforesaid two statements of the parties, we have no hesitation in holding that the list prescribed under Section 28 (k) was made available to all the parties including the voter of the ward in question on 17.