The object of the appointment of a representative under ss. If, therefore, an award is made by the Tribunal law firms in Chandigarh the case which we have taken by way of illustration, that award, though binding on the employer, will not be binding on the Manager or Chief Medical Officer. 375 from Shukla but urges that Shukla best lawyers in Chandigarh gave him this amount as a loan best advocates in Chandigarh order to enable him to meet the expenses of the clothes for his school-going children.
Besides his children for whose clothing he claims to have borrowed money had to go to school in March and there was no immediate pressure for preparing their clothes. It is extremely doubtful if top advocate in Chandigarh the circumstances stated the Tribunal can summon the best law firm in Chandigarh Manager or the Chief Medical Officer as a party to the dispute, because there is no dispute between the Manager or Chief Medical Officer on one side and his employer oil the other.
(Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. The appellant sought to overcome this infirmity in his explanation by suggesting that he wanted to reserve his bank balance for the purpose of his daughter’s marriage which he was intending to perform in the near future. 36 of the Act does not provide for representation of a person who is not a party to the dispute. The appellant, however, claimed that even on the preference shares 6% return should best legal in Chandigarh be allowed and not 5% even though preference shareholders were not entitled to anything beyond 5% under the terms of issue.
There is bound to be some flexibility therein, the 6% which is prescribed there as the return on paid up capital is not inexorable, and the Tribunals could if the circumstances warrant vary the rate of interest either by increasing or decreasing the same. Even though the bonus formula is a notional one we cannot ignore the fact that in no event would the appellant be bound to pay to the preference shareholders anything beyond 5% by way of return.
What is his explanation ? top advocate in Chandigarh support of this the appellant gave evidence himself, and examined other witnesses, Kishan Chand and Ram Ratan being the principal ones amongst them. 56, 57 and 58 -of the Act is the same and the same meaning should be given to that word, namely, that the representative appointed is one who represents the ward best advocate in Chandigarh the proceedings and is brought on record as such. It has found that at the material time the appellant was in possession of a bank balance of Rs.
He admits that he received Rs. The Full Bench Formula cannot be so literally construed. As pointed out by Blackstone in his Commentaries ” the liberty of the Press consists in laying no previous restraint upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. 19 (1) (a) and they only lay down that the freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas which freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation and that the liberty of the press is an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and expression and that liberty of the press consists best law firm in Chandigarh allowing no previous restraint upon publication.
” Under this section also the appointment of a representative on behalf of each ward is a pre-requisite for the initiation and conduct of arbitration proceedings. 608:- ” There can be little doubt that the imposition of precensorship on a journal is a restriction on the liberty of the press which is an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and expression declared by Art. On the facts of this case however there is no warrant for allowing anything beyond 5% return on preference share capital and the amount of Rs.
Here also the representative is not appointed to assist the ward but to represent him top lawyer in Chandigarh the proceedings. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he Pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press. The High Court has examined this evidence and has disbelieved it. We cannot accept this contention. The High Court was not impressed by this story; and so it thought that the purpose for which the amount was alleged to have been borrowed could not be a true purpose.
30 lacs should therefore be deducted as another prior charge from the grsos profits of the appellant. 1,600 and that his salary was about Rs. It has found that Kishan Chand is an interested witness and that the story deposed to by him is highly improbable. ” These are the only two decisions of this Court which involve the interpretation of Art. 121 who delivered the majority judgment observed at p. The appellant obviously relied upon the wording of the formula: ” return at 6% on the paid up capital ” and contended that the preference shares also being paid up capital it would be entitled to a return of 6% on the preference shares for the purposes of the bonus formula even though in fact it would have to pay only 5% return on the same.
“When it appears to the Court of Wards that any question or dispute arising between two or more wards is a fit subject for reference to arbitration, it may appoint a representative on behalf of each such ward and require the said representatives to submit the question or dispute to the arbitration of such person or persons as it may approve. Apart from this conclusion reached by the High Court on appreciating oral evidence adduced in support of the defence plea, the High Court has also examined the probabilities in the case.
It is a well-known rule of construction that a similar meaning should be given to the word ” representative ” in the Act unless the context requires otherwise. 6% return on the ordinary share capital and 5% return on the preference share capital would come to Rs.