In the present case a notification under Section 17(1) and (4) was issued by the State Government and possession which had previously been taken must, from the date of expiry of fifteen days from the publication of the notice under Section 9(1), be deemed to be in the possession of the Government. The first was whether the word ” information ” was wide enough to include knowledge about the state of the law or about a decision on a point of law. The failure of the Magistrate to intimate his decision to commit to the accused deprived them of the right to produce defence evidence, if any, under S.
The lease which was for a period of 36 years w. 34 of the Act of the interest on arrears of rent is legal. We are of the view that when a notification under Section 17(1) is issued, on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9(1), the possession previously obtained will be deemed to be the possession of the Government under Section 17(1) of the Act and the land will vest in the Government free from all encumbrances.
Act from applying to the acquired lands, which, because of the significance of its language, is reproduced below: The State Government had by means of Notification No. Reference was also made to the award in the Calcutta Exchange Gazette and Daily Advertiser And One of their employees (1) where the age of superannuation had been similarly fixed at 55. When, in the present case, the Magistrate decided to commit the case, he should have refrained from framing the charge and should have informed the accused of his intention to commit and should have called upon the accused to produce defence evidence, if any.
After sundry procedure which it is not necessary to detail, the matter reached dig this Court, and the question which was before it was ” whether in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order under s. ” Two questions were involved. There was thus no restriction or regulation on the nature of cultivation/plantation to be resorted to by the lessee on the cultivable portion of the land leased out. The lease deed, reading between the lines, would demonstrate irrefutably, that at the time of execution thereof, neither a private forest nor a plantation as defined in Section 2 (44)/2 (47) of the Act 1963 did exist on the demised land.
If so, the next question is whether the arbitration clause of the original contracts survived after the execution of the settlement contract dated February 22, 1949. 347(1) of the Code and to follow the procedure prescribed click here for more info inquiries under Ch. 1987 and 3/86-87 dated 18. These Notifications had simultaneously excluded the provisions of Section 5A of the L. We are unable to agree that where the Government has obtained possession illegally or under some unlawful transaction and a notification under Section 17(1) is issued the land does not vest in the Government free from all encumbrances.
The tribunal held that the system of forced retirement introduced by the appellant under its relevant standing order was perfectly justified. State Transport Appellate Tribunal etc. Reliance has been placed upon paras 37 and 38 and the same are reproduced hereunder: With respect to the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench, the Builder has relied upon the decision of this Court in Sri Nasiruddin etc. 1987 initiated steps for acquiring tracts of lands in Mouza Sansarpur and in Hardas Chak.
[1975] INSC 191; [1975 (2) SCC 671]. We shall succinctly narrate the salient facts of the Appeal before us. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the terms of the arbitration clause are wide and comprehensive, and any dispute on the question whether the said contract was discharged by any of the ways known to law came within its fold. 1918, encompassed land admeasuring 963-1/2 acres which included hills, water channels, poyils lands etc so much so that only 925 acres were comprehended to be fit for cultivation and the lessee was left at liberty to raise coffee, tea, pepper, cinchona, rubber or any other produce at the latters discretion.
It is apparent as well on the face of the lease deed, that there were forests, jungles and trees on the land which the lessee was authorized to clear for the purpose of plantation and cultivation, to be decided by him. To reiterate, on the date of creation of the lease there was neither any plantation nor a private forest on the leasehold land within the meaning of Section 2 (44) and 2 (47) of Act 1963 respectively. It observed that the respondent had given no convincing reason why the age limit of retirement should by fixed not at 55 but at 60 years as alleged by it; and it referred to the fact that in the case of a dispute between ‘the appellant and its head-office staff the retirement age had been fixed at 55 years link home (click the following website) by consent in proceedings before the Second Industrial Tribunal on September 24, 1953.
Incidentally please click the up coming article tribunal was impressed by the appellant’s argument that the respondent had not preferred an appeal against the relevant standing order though an appeal was competent under the Act.