Reader Comments

Lawyer in Chandigarh - An Overview

by Numbers Fetherstonhaugh (2018-10-24)

Firstly, when an order of detention has been revoked under Section 12A of the COFEPOSA Act. 4 in the case, was deputed by the Railway Department to assist the Special Police Establishment in the investigation. Therefore, the appellant could not have availed of the right to challenge his order of detention, for the simple reason, that on the revival of the order of detention within the framework of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act, the appellant came to be released forthwith, namely, on the same day.

A land holder cannot be divested from his land on the plea of clerical or arithmetical mistake liable to be corrected by issuing corrigendum. Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent states that Advocates all the questions had been answered by the Supreme Court and nothing survives. The Company conducted and continued its business as usual and sold its products on ex-work basis whereby the customer as earlier sent Truckers along with persons who were from the Societies for loading.

Harbans Narain Singh and others (1) that the lease will not be binding on the mortgagors. For this, reference has been made to Section 12A(6), which expressly finds mention in proviso (iii) of Section (2)2(b) of SAFEMA Act. The argument that the provisions of the impugned Acts were designed with a view to oust the private stage carriage services from business altogether and were intended to create a virtual monopoly in favour of the Joint-Stock Company or the State as the case maybe is also now of no avail.

It is clear, that the appellant came to be released on 21. It is submitted, that this right which was available to the appellant after the declaration under Section 12A came to be revoked, was really not available to Advocates him, because the appellant came to be released on 21. 1977, Advocates and Special Civil Application No. He wishes to file fresh Advocates petition in the light of the said judgment raising such contention, as may be open to the appellant in accordance with law.

Saghir Ahmad's case(1) was particularly relied upon by the petitioners in support of their contentions but article 19(6) of the Constitution as amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, enacts that "Nothing in sub-clause (g) shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause, shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,-- (i).

The learned Advocate for the appellant, however, wishes to withdraw the writ petition. , reported in JT 1994(3) SC 583. 1276 of 1977 was filed by him for the first time on 19. And secondly, where such an order of detention was revoked under Section 8 thereof. An arithmetical mistake is a mistake in calculation, while a clerical mistake is a mistake of writing or typing error occurring due to accidental slip or omissions or error due to careless mistake or omission.

In order to substantiate his instant contention, he placed reliance on proviso (iii) of Section 2(2)(b) of the SAFEMA ACt, which provides for two further eventualities, wherein proceedings under the SAFEMA Act cannot be initiated, despite the detention of an individual under the COFEPOSA Act. But where there is no such prohibition, the only consequence is that the parties will be thrown back on their rights under the Transfer of Property Act, and the lessees must still establish that the lease is binding on the mortgagors under s.

The challenge to the Constitutional validity of SAFEMA Act and COFEPOSA Act no longer survives, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General of India v. Learned counsel seeks to emphasise, that a closer examination of proviso (iii) of Section 2(2)(b) indicates, that for computing the periods mentioned in Section 8, the period during which a declaration under Section 12A is in force shall not be taken into account.

According to the learned counsel, that however should make no difference whatsoever. The question that arises for our consideration, is based on the assertion, that the appellant did not raise any such challenge to the order of his preventive detention, during the subsistence of the order of his detention. It is the submission of the learned counsel, that proviso (iii) expressly postulates the possibility of a revocation of an order of detention, even after the declaration under Section 12A ceases to operate, under section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act.

In our considered opinion, substituting different lands in place of the lands which have been notified by a statutory Notification under Section 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) cannot and shall not be done by issuing a corrigendum unless the mandatory requirements contained in the aforementioned sections is complied with. Labhu Ram, Railway Parcels clerk in the Railway at Saharanpur, was deputed by the Station Master to help the Police party.