Anbazhagan is to somehow or the other get rid of him as the Special Public Prosecutor is not relevant since his competence is not in question. foot for the site acquired in this case. foot and he has no objection to fix the same market value at Rs. foot by considering the appreciation in the value of the site since 25 years at Rs. The advocate for the claimants argued that the market value of the site at Tirumala during 1962 was Rs.
It includes knowledge of fact. From a plain reading of the aforesaid it is evident that it creates a legal one-time offer (check over here) fiction and presumes the person in possession of illicit articles to have committed the offence in case he fails to account for the possession satisfactorily. We have carefully considered this workman’s case, and we are satisfied that the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to accord approval even to his dismissal. 1 hereof shall be adjusted in respect of the rise or fall in the indexed cost of labour, Contractors equipment, Plant materials and other inputs to the Work, by the addition or subtraction of the amounts determined by the formulae prescribed in this Clause.
The possession, therefore, has to be understood in the context thereof and when tested on this anvil, we find out here now that the appellants have not been able to satisfactorily account for the possession of opium. Har Prasad is the President of the Kapra Mill Mazdoor Union, Saharanpur, and it is because of his activities as such President that the appellant does not like him. It is significant that some of the workmen who assaulted the officers on October 14 had accompanied Har Prasad and were present when he gave just simply click the up coming article the up coming web site (linked web page) threat to the Controller.
The submission that Mr. , 25 years after the land acquisition covered by Ex. Close upon the heels of this link judgment comes another 3-Judge Bench decision under the same provision of the U. Bhavani Singh has impeccable credentials and the attempt of Mr. Madan Lal Das and Sons[1976] INSC 230; , 1976 (4) SCC 464, without adverting to either Parson Tools or the three other judgments mentioned hereinabove went on to apply Section 12 (2) of the Limitation Act to proceedings under the U.
Even under the enactment imposing Profits Tax corresponding to our Excess Profits Tax it was held not to be income receivable from “investments or other property”. The Tribunal has observed that this workman has why not try this out been named by any witness as having taken part in any assault, and it was therefore inclined to take the view that his dismissal amounted to victimisation. The entire production of the respondent was purchased by Nestle and Nestle alone.
It was, therefore, held that the Appellate Tribunal in that case could entertain the appeal even after the period of 90 days had expired provided sufficient cause for the delay was made out. Maheshwari, however, wanted us to examine the case of Har Prasad, because, according to him, Har Prasad has been victimised by the employer for 219 his trade union activities. Nestle Products (India) Limited and M/s.
1 : Price Adjustment The amount payable to the Contractor and valued at base rates and prices pursuant to Sub-Clause 60. It is common ground that at the relevant time Har Prasad was not recognised as a protected workman, and so his case does not fall under s. It is common ground that Har Prasad led the deputation to read the full info here Controller of Production both on October 12 and October 14; and the threat held out by him on the earlier occasion is not denied by him.
Possession is a mental state and Section 35 of the Act gives statutory recognition to culpable mental state. (2) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organized crime or any act preparatory to organized crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.
2/Beneficiary argued that in similar cases, this court fixed the market value of the site at Rs. B-3, the market value of the site acquired in this case can be fixed more than Rs. It is true that this court in Jayalalithaa[38] had observed that “no issue has been raised by the respondents [including Mr. On facts, in that case, the appeal was held to be properly instituted under Section 19, which as has been stated earlier, had no cap to condonation of delay.
B-3 and since the site in question is acquired in 1987, i. Nestle Holdings Limited, to manufacture for and on behalf of M/s Nestle Products (India) Limited sweetened condensed milk and other food products for sale in India by Nestle under certain trademarks in respect of which Nestle was registered as the sole registered user in India. Buxton Palace Hotel Ltd. It is significant to note that Section 52(2) of the repealed Act provided a period of limitation of 45 plus 45 days and no more whereas Section 19(2) of FEMA provided for 45 days with no cap thereafter provided sufficient cause to condone delay is shown.
In this judgment, another 3-Judge Bench in C. In terms he told the Controller that his conduct would bring trouble.