Addagada Chenchamma(3), and it was held that a member of a joint Hindu family seeking to separate himself from others will have to make known his intention to other members of his family from whom he seeks to separate. It was contended on his behalf that the order of 21st August, 1951 amounted to infliction of punishment. It is clear however that the Government did not decide to hold any enquiry for the purpose of taking disciplinary action against the appellant, for no enquiry officer was appointed, no charges were framed and no regular departmental enquiry as envisaged by the rules and Art.
69, and upon the opinion expressed in Woodroffe [1955] 1 S. The question relating to the proof of ownership was settled on March 19, 1961. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act should be done ordinarily by officers of the rank of deputy superintendent or above N4 doubt S. 1533, that the rule laid down by the Judicial Committee raises merely a presumption which may be rebutted by evidence. 5A was to see that the investigation of offenses punishable under ss.
On August 21, 1951, the Government passed an order reverting the appellant to his substantive post in Class 11 and trans- ferred him from Patna College to Ranchi College. Counsel also relied upon the observations of the Judicial Committee in Durga Prosad Sureka and others V. 161, 165 or 165A, IPC as well as those under S. In dismissing the appeal, it was pointed out by this Senior Advocates Chandigarh High Court that “the enquiry which was held by the Commissioner in this case was in the nature of a preliminary enquiry to enable the Government to decide whether disciplinary action should be taken against the appellant.
By a notification dated July 1, 1960 published by the Delhi Administration the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, withdrew the land of 16 colonies from the acquisition out of the area covered by the notification of November 13, 1959 on the ground that their lay out plan had been sanctioned by the Delhi Municipal Corporation and as per general decision of the Standing Committee, Delhi Municipal Corporation, the petitioner was asked by the Town Planner by letter dated April 16, 1960 to submit a de- notification certificate to the effect that the land comprising the proposed lay out of his colony was excluded from the purview of the notification issued under s.
Jorawar Singh (2), Viscount Cave, in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee, observed “It is settled law that in the case of a joint Hindu family subject to the law of the Mitakshara, a severance of estate is effected by an unequivocal declaration on the part of one of the joint holders of his intention to hold his share separately, even though no actual division takes place : and the commencement of a suit for partition has been held to be sufficient.
The legislature proceeded on the basis that except for good-reasons the magistrate would not accord permission for officers below the rank of a deputy superintendent to investigate those offenses. 31(2) merely because the actions already taken have been sought to be ‘validated. 53 back to the Town Planner for a scrutiny of the ownership documents. On June 14, 1961 the Deputy Housing Commissioner, Delhi Administration, issued the first notification under s.
5A also provides for an alternative procedure. The petitioner duly filed his objections under s. to _effect a severance in interest even before decree. In the meantime, the notification dated November 13, 1959 had been issued under s. Counsel relied upon the observations in Remfry’s Sale of Goods in British India-Tagore Law Lectures 1910 at p. Bhajan Lall and others (2) that “In India a contract of sale can be roved by parol been falsified, the aggrieved purchaser was entitled to disregard them and prove his contract by other and antecedent material.
” According to this Chandigarh High Court Advocates the action of the Government was in pursuance of its right to revert an officer Top Lawyers in High Court Chandigarh holding, a higher post temporarily if he was not found. ” These authorities were quoted with approval by this Chandigarh High Court Advocates in Addagada Raghavamma v. The appellant filed a suit which was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge. The needs of the State are unlimited and the purposes for which the State exists are also unlimited. Provided the legislative policy is enunciated with sufficient clearness or I standard is laid down, the courts should not interfere with the discretion that undoubtedly rests with the legislature itself in determination the extent of delegation necessary in a particular case.
In the present case, there has been no variation of the law formulated in s. 311(2) of the Constitution Was ever held. Counsel for the appellant urged that a discrepancy between the terms of the bought and the sold notes may be explained by extraneous evidence, and that Cowie’s case (1) merely lays down a presumption and not an absolute rule. The object of the legislature in enacting S. As such, in our opinion, there has been no violation of Art.