Reader Comments

Not known Facts About Advocate in Chandigarh

by Numbers Fetherstonhaugh (2018-10-27)


1977, the declaration under Section 12A ceased to be operative, with reference Advocates to the detention of the appellant. All the above decisions Advocates have followed the reasoning of Ram Naresh Pandey case (supra) and the principles settled in that decision were not doubted. 488(1)(c), and (3) there was substantial prejudice to the appellant inasmuch as if the conviction were under s. State (Chandigarh Admn. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1965 AP 288, in which the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that with the coming into force of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Hyderabad Suits against Government Act stood repealed.

The motive factor also stood not proved beyond reasonable doubt, considering the statement of PW1 who had categorically stated in his evidence that there was no dispute with regard to haudi and the land abutted to that. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed- (a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872 ), or the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891 ) or (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.

" Just as plaintiff may not waive a conversion so as to pick his own time to demand return and thus evade being statute barred, so he may not bide his time after a conversion so as to make his demand when the market price is highest. 5(1) (d) of receiving illegal bribe of Rs. " The argument to the contrary is that the defendant is bound by a pecuniary payment to put the plaintiff in a position as good as that in which he stood before the tort was committed.

This is of course the normal rule, though the courts have tried to soften its rigour by importing the consideration that the plaintiff should not be allowed to delay his action in order to get the advantage of a rising market. 295) the plaintiff in 1941 deposited a car in the defendant's yard. "Bona fide resident" for the purposes of the above rule was defined as "(a) a citizen of India, whose original domicile is in Madhya Bharat, provided he has not acquired a domicile elsewhere, or (b) a citizen of India, whose original domicile is 1231 not in Madhya Bharat but who has acquired a domicile in Madhya Bharat and has resided there for not less than 5 years, at the date on which he applies for admission, or (c) a person who migrated from Pakistan before A.

" (Kialfray (12) Modern Law Review at page 427). In 1945, Advocates the defendant, after endeavouring without success to communicate with the plaintiff, sold the car, having spent pound 85 on repairs necessary to put it into a saleable state. Again, on the lifting of the emergency on 21. The Tribunal does not deal with this aspect of the matter and simply assumes that the petition as presented did raise a charge under s. We agree with the opinion of the High Advocates Court that the offence under S.

State of Bihar[8], Subhash Chander v. " If, on the other hand, where the property increases in value after the date of the conversion, a distinction has to be drawn. 50 has been made out and would therefore dismiss this appeal. 768 No arguments were addressed to this court on the correctness of the finding of the High Court in regard to the conviction for receiving illegal gratification from Pal Singh. Ram Naresh Pandey[11] came to hold thus:- 99.

assessed the value of the car at the date of the judgment as pound 120, but hold " that the defendant is entitled to credit, not from the point of view of payment for what he has done, but in order to arrive at the true value of the property which the plaintiff has lost": if 808 the repairs had not been done the car could only have been sold for scrap". 488, he might have been entitled to claim compensation : Shri Viswanathan also relied upon two High Court judgments to buttress his submission that the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act had been repealed by the introduction of Advocates the Code of Civil Procedure in 1951.

State[10] and the principles stated in State of Bihar v. Lal Singh and Others, AIR 1959 P He relied upon Jelejar Hormosji Gotla v. If the increase is due to the act of the defendant, the plaintiff has not title to it, and his claim is limited to the original value of the chattel. At the beginning of the order of detention, and at the time of revocation thereof, whilst the detention order subsisted only within the limited scope of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act read with Section 12A thereof, there was really no occasion for the appellant to assail the same thereafter, on any of the grounds as may have been available to him.

A speculative element might enter into the matter and a shrewd plaintiff might attempt to take unfair advantage of a fluctuating market. He also relied upon Gurbinder Singh and Others v. We are of opinion 395 that this assumption is erroneous and that its finding is vitiated thereby. The defendant is bound to make such pecuniary payment as would put the plaintiff at the date of the tort in as good a position as he would have been in had there been no tort.

That is true, but it is necessary to add the consideration of which we have recently heard so much, in the form of a fourth dimension-namely, that of time. September 30, 1948 and intends to reside in Madhya Bharat permanently, or (d) a person or class of persons or citizens of an area or territory adjacent to Madhya Bharat or to India in respect of whom or which a Declaration of Eligibility has been made by the Madhya Bharat Government".

)[9], Rajender Kumar Jain v.