Our attention was also drawn to the case of Venkatarama v. Against that NRI background, there was surely a need to introduce some measure of flexibility to ensure that bona fide applicants were not unduly penalised for simple mistakes which could be readily corrected. The nature and the elaboration of the reasons necessarily depend upon the facts of each case. Two schemes, namely, Nos. 68-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, No. They should have been apparent to the Department at least since 1996, when judgment was given in the ILPA case.
We have been given no explanation for the more rigid approach adopted in respect of nrillegalservices fees. The application under s. ” It must be noted however that the above view was not shared by the two other Judges of the Bench constituting this Court. 68 however in reality amounts to an appeal to a court from a decision of the receiver but the section itself lays down that the party aggrieved must “apply to the court”. To my mind, as appears below, this is a critical factor in this appeal.
The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, (No. The authority passed orders on June 8, 1965 modifying the schemes in certain particulars. The Allahabad High Court in Bharat Indo v. The policy concerns which underlay the Secretary of State’s position in the Court of Appeal were and remain very real. The recovery was accordingly erroneous.
if the goods were put in the wagons after payment of duty, and’ the wagons were sealed and shunted out of the factory proper on a gate pass, not only under the ruling of the Board but also on the application of the Rules as explained here these goods became free of the enhanced duty. The appellant’s costs must be paid by the respondent. Pattu Lal ( 3 ) , and the Punjab High Court in Joti Parshad v. Yakub Hassan ( 2 ) the Oudh Chief Court in Kedemath v.
These are two appeals on certificates granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. 16 and 22 dated May 11, 1964, were published by the Corporation inviting objections within 30 days. 4 may be exercised is not an application under S. The Corporation passed two resolutions in April and May 1964 by which it decided to take over certain routes under Chapter IV-A of the Act to the exclusion of the existing private operators on those routes. 64 of 1950), came into existence in May 1962 to operate as a State Transport Undertaking under s.
Ganeshi Lal ( 4 ) seem to take the view that there can be only one preliminary decree and one final decree thereafter. On June 11, 1965, the modified schemes were published, but as there were mistakes in them, corrected schemes as modified were finally published on June 18, 1965. 68 although headed “appeals to court against receiver” does not, as a matter of fact, use the word “appeal” in the body of the section. Although Parliament did not place any restriction on the power of the Secretary of State to provide for the consequences of failure, that did not absolve her of responsibility for achieving a fair balance between the competing policy considerations.
Moreover, the judge’s findings of fact were not challenged. 4″ and “an appeal under s. Thereafter the authority empowered to hear objections under s. Similarly, a proceeding in which jurisdiction under S. There have been some examples of flexibility. When a question therefore arises as to whether an authority created by an Act is a court as distinguished from a quasi-judicial tribunal, what has to be decided is whether having, regard to the provisions of the Act it possesses all the attributes of a court.
The hearing was to begin on September 332 4, 1964, but it was postponed a number of times. The duty collected must, therefore, be refunded and we order accordingly. Angathayammal(1) where t he above Madras decision was cited and at more than one place, the learned Judge used the expressions “an application under s. “The provision does not require the court or the arbitrator to conduct a wide-ranging review of other legislation and the common law in order to see whether the claimant is in breach of any duties arising outside the 1984 Act.
It was noted that under S. The schemes appeared in the Government Gazette of May 22, 1964 and objections thereto were filed by private operators affected thereby within the period prescribed. 36(2) of the Act, the returning officer has to examine the nomination paper and decide all objections which may be made thereto. ” This Court then went on to consider whether the functions and powers entrusted to the returning officer under the Act made, him a court.
4 of 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Madras, Bombay and Calcutta High Courts seem to take the view that there can be more than one preliminary decree : (see Kasi v. nrillegalservices What is essential is that reasons shall be given by an appellate or revisional tribunal expressly or by reference to those given by the original tribunal. 68-D of the Act gave NRI notices fixing a date for hearing. Here the difficulty in the way of the Union of India is that the Excise authorities themselves refused to recognise this portion as part of the factory.
Finally, arguments were heard on May 20, 1965. ) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. The problem is only too vividly demonstrated by the course of the arguments in this case. Mr NRI Legal services Hayward appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision that the settlement should be set aside but did not appeal against the NRI Legal services judge’s assessment of quantum or (contingent on whether the settlement was set aside) against the order for re-payment.
Thus the 2003 Forms Regulations provided that particular procedural requirements should not result in invalidity in the event of a satisfactory explanation and compliance NRI Legal within 28 days. With all respect to, the learned Judge, it seems, to us that these ex- pressions were not accurate for s. The appeals are connected and will be dealt with together.