examined the scheme of the Act and observed as follows: “A tax”, said Latham, C. 226 of the Constitution in the Chandigarh High Court Divorce Lawyers Court of Gujarat for writs quashing or setting aside the notifications under ss. Sri Lakshmindi-a Tirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt(1) Mukherjee, J. But it is significant to note that as early as 1907, a system of levying uniform rates as indicated in S. Best Lawyers In Chandigarh High Court view of the wording of s. It is true that between a tax and a fee there is no generic difference; both are compulsory exactions of money by public authorities but whereas a tax is imposed for public purposes and is not supported by any consideration of service rendered in return, a fee is levied essentially for servires rendered and as such there is an element of quid pro quo between the person who pays the fee and the public authority which imposes it.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer made a common award on August 13, 1960. The judgement of each must have the same effect and force. After the new State of Haryana was constituted on November 1, 1966, the Government of Haryana placed at the disposal of the Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State and the Deputy Ministers certain sums of money for distribution at their discretion. Advocates in High Court Chandigarh The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras. As each democratically elected body must be entitled to form its own judgement about public interest and social justice in matters of social and economic policy within a field where, under the structure of devolution, it has sole primary legislative competence, there is no logical justification for treating the views of one such body in a different way to the others, given the constitutional structure that has been developed.
, as he then was, cited the definition of tax given by Latham, C. 39 has been in vogue in Australia. 39 of the Australian Act, the reasoning of the Privy Council in construing the said section regarding the rule of uniformity cannot be applied when construing s. The sections, no doubt, apply retrospectively but they do not constitute an exercise of the judicial power on the part of the Parliament. It is of course well known (and not in dispute) that an original OS map with a scale of 1:25,000 depicts more physical features than an original OS map of the same site with a scale of 1:50,000.
4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the awards and the notices issued for obtaining possession from the petitioners. This position is admitted. He contends also that the High Court,was in error in deducting the amount of fine When no question of reduction of sentence was to be Considered: We shall say Something about the procedure adopted in’ the Chandigarh High Court Best Lawyers Court presently. Finding that it was not possible to persuade the other owners to sell their lands, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was moved to make his award.
When the Special Land Acquisition Officer attempted to take possession of the lands acquired, the tenants of the structures moved petitions under Art. Nuruddin Ahmed contends that the Chandigarh High Court Advocates Court should have reduced the sentence and taken over the money which had been deposited for payment to the complainant. However, again I agree with Maurice Kay LJ that, since paragraph 1(a) permits the use of a map which is not produced by OS (or any other commercial or public authority), it cannot be said to embrace a requirement that the application map must include the same features as are depicted on an original 1:25,000 OS map.
In dealing with this argument Mukherjee, J. Under this section every religious institution had to pay to the Government annual contribution not exceeding 5 per cent of its income for the services rendered to it by the said Government; and the argument was that the con- tribution thus exacted was not a fee but a tax and as such outside the competence of the State Legislature. I cannot see why in principle the United Kingdom Parliament Lawyers in High Court Chandigarht making legislative choices in relation to England (in relation to matters such as the funding of the NHS in England) is to be accorded a status which commands greater weight than would be accorded to the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies in relation respectively to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
This was by a Resolution of the Government in November, 1966 (Ex. In b,-in-ing out the essential features of a tax this definition also assists in distinguishing a tax from a fee. , is a compulsory exaction of monev by public authority for public purposes enforceable by law and is not payment for services rendered”. Although the weight to be accorded to the judgement of these legislative bodies will vary according to the matter in issue, there is no reason in determining weight to treat the judgement of the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly in any way different to the United Kingdom Parliament.
, in the case of Matthews(1) and has elaborately considered the distinction between a tax and a fee. ” The learned Chief Justice observed that this aptly described what had happened in the case before the Federal Court and answered the argument that it was an impossible feat to convert what was not a trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure into a trial under the Code: Proceedings for assessment of compensation were not imme- diately taken in hand, but negotiations were started by the Municipal Borough with the owners of the lands, and between the years 1944 and 1952 some lands were purchased by the Municipal Borough by private treaty and the lands so purchased were withdrawn from the notification for acquisition.