as may be necessary for full enjoyment of the PML. Anija told him that she had not examined the urine for acetone. If, as I have held, the appeal could not be proceeded with without the statutory representative on record, the whole proceeding, including the passing of the compromise, without such representative, was null and void. The entry ” Acetone + + ” was clearly interpolated in the case paper later. Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the Judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral.
In controversial matters such as are involved in industrial relations there is room for differences of opinion as to what is expedient, what is just and what is morally justifiable. 1 filed an election petition against the appellant and the other respondents for setting aside the election as wholly void. 560 I have earlier stated that Dr. It is pointed out that under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1959 a petroleum mining license (PML) entitles the licensee to carry out construction and maintenance in and on such land, works, buildings, plants, waterways, roads, pipelines etc.
Variava had taken her to task and asked her to test the urine for acetone. the role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that Parliament has approved as expressing its intention what that intention was, and to giving effect to it. Anija did examine the urine at that time for sugar, for otherwise she was not likely to have started the insulin injections. One of the allegations was that the respondent No. nAs far as the stand of the second respondent that he is a non-resident Indian residing in Dubai till September, 2011 and was the Managing Director of the first respondent and that the first respondent is a distinct and separate legal entity from the second respondent and therefore the first respondent cannot be made liable or responsible for the action of the second respondent, it must be stated that even as per the legal opinion of M/s.
Under Rule 4 of the said Rules no person can prospect for petroleum except pursuant to a Petroleum Exploration License (PEL) granted under the Rules and no person can mine petroleum except in pursuance of a Petroleum Mining License (PML) granted under the Rules. I cannot accept the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that even though s. Reference has also been made to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Rules, 1959 framed under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act.
further pointed on behalf of the appellants that even under the provisions of Section 3D of the Oil Fields (Regulation and Development) Act 1948 a mining lease means a lease granted for the purposes of searching for, winning, working, getting, making merchandisable, carrying away or disposing of mineral oils or for the purpose connected therewith and such a lease includes an exploring or prospecting lease.
The Election Tribunal held that the (1) (1955) 1 S. nThis is bound to create problems for the child in the future. Anija had interpolated the entry ” Acetone + + ” at some later time. Under our Constitution it is Parliaments opinion on these matters that is paramount. 2, was, at all material times, under 25 years of age and was consequently not qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of a State under Art. Therefore, it is too late in the day for the respondents in attempting to get themselves excluded from the alleged violations as against the issuing companies along with the respondents, which resulted in the passing of the order of debarment dated 20.
Singhania and Co the Solicitors and Indian advocates in Supreme Cour of Indiat in Supreme Court Law firms Supreme Court India lawyers [please click the next internet page] based at London who have stated apparently on the instructions of the second respondent, that he was the sole shareholder of the first respondent who is a non- resident Indian residing at Dubai. All this clearly shows that Dr. From the reasons recorded by the High Supreme Court India advocates, it appears that instead of considering the prima facie case, the High Court has appreciated and weighed the materials on record for coming to the conclusion that charge against the respondents could not have been framed.
She gave two of these, one at 6-30 a. It wasbecause she had not tested the urine for acetone but had none the less started the treatment for diabetic coma that Dr. It is a misplaced assumption in the Law firms in Supreme Court as it is presently perceived that the issuance of a Birth Certificate would be a logical corollary to the Appellant succeeding in her guardianship petition In this regard, the Appellant has not sought any relief either before us or before any of the Courts below.
173 of the Constitution. In our view, it is apparent that the entire approach of the High Court is illegal and erroneous. the entry “Sugar + + + Albumin-” was there but the entry ” Acetone + + ” was not there and that Dr. There is an entry with regard to it in the case paper, which reads ‘Sugar + + + Albumin-Acetone + + There is little reason to doubt that Dr. Anija examined the urine of the patient at 6-30 a. 56 is mandatory, the non-compliance of the provisions of the section does not affect the validity of the compromise.
Variava’s recollection is that when the case paper was shown to him about 11 a. and the other at about 9 a.