An Unbiased View Of Lawyer In Chandigarh

1994 and since then he has not visited India again is corroborated by the statements of various persons tendered under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 and also by documentary evidence i. Thus the statement of Shri Varyam Singh who himself accepted as evidence whereas the claim of the appellant is supported by way of corroborative statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 and documentary evidence is acceptable as credible Advocates (blog) evidence in his favour.

The contention on behalf of the appellant in this respect cannot be supported on any valid ground. In the circumstance we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. No other person involved in the case has mentioned anything about the appellant. During the course of hearing, learned counsel representing the State of Karnataka vehemently contended, that the acquittal of the accused by the High Court, was in clear Advocates (read the full info here) violation of the declaration of law, with reference to the provisions under which the accused were charged.

In our opinion, it was unnecessary for, the High Court to have called for the record and to have examined it for itself in order to ascertain whether the respondent was justified in issuing the notice. That stage could only be reached after the notice had been issued and after the holding of such enquiry, as the circumstances of the case permitted, when an order declaring the property to be evacuee property could be made in respect of a person who was an evacuee, as defined in 104 820 the Act.

However, we see some force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant and the other owners belonging to the family cannot make a claim for an extent of 500 sq. Unless a State Government has authority to act in anticipation of orders from the Centre it might be too late to act at all; On the other hand the claim of the appellant that he had left India on 06. The mere issue of a notice would not make the persons named therein evacuees or the property mentioned therein evacuee property.

It was next contended on behalf of the appellant that when bona fides of the respondent bad been challenged in the High Court, that Court should have sent for the record and seen for itself as to whether there was any justification for the issue of the notice under s. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply the rule of main purpose and the concept of fundamental breach to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act.

Moreover the appellant has not laid any claim on the impugned gold under seizure in this case. copies of his passports. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, reliance in the first instance was placed on the decision rendered by this Court in Kans Raj v. It is not for this Court or any other Court to determine whether the information in possession of the respondent was adequate to justify the issuing of the notice. The Rules indicate that the allotment is for a plot upto the size of 500 sq.

The respondent was free to believe or not to believe the information in his possession. It was for the respondent to decide . 799 if she had been completed by the defendant according to his contract with the plaintiff and deduct therefrom the money that would necessarily have been laid out Advocates; blog, by the defendant after that date, in order to complete her according to the contract. whether, on the information in his possession, he should issue a notice under s. Thus there is only the lone statement of Shri Varyam Singh alleging the involvement of the appellant and is not corroborated by the statement of any other person or by any documentary evidence.

In our opinion, this contention cannot prevail as there is no material on the record to justify the accusation that the respondent acted with malafides in issuing the notice. However before taking any action against the individuals they shall be issued show cause in the matter and thereafter decision will be rendered in accordance with law. The value of the ship was thus calculated as at the date of the conversion even though the method of computation was prescribed by the circumstances of the case.

(iv)the State Government is competent to make an order of detention under the law in anticipation of an order of expulsion that Advocates (blog) is about to be made, or which may be made by the Central Government on the recommendation of the State Government which, though seized with certain powers of Government is not competent to make an order of expulsion itself. Let this exercise be completed within a period of four months. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident.