The trial court dismissed the suit, rejecting plaintiff-appellant’s contention that Abdul Karim had defaulted in the payment of rent and that he needed the suit property for bonafide use on the grounds that the appellant was not the landlord of the suit property and Abdul Karim had been admittedly depositing the rent in the court. Their holding was 3,000 and with Maganlal’s holding of 1,344 shares, makes up a total of 4,344 shares.
Even if it was assumed that he had received the electricity charges, the appellant was held to have failed to prove himself as the landlord as the appellant had not produced any evidence of having received rent from any of tenants. 2000 was without any legal sanction and therefore liable to be disregarded and since the liability was validly created after the contract was entered into, the matter was covered under Clause 70.
of the shares are not beneficially held by the public. The disputes between the parties were referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. The trial court noted that PW3 Ranjeet Prasad had represented himself to be the landlord in the agreement dated 20. Judged from this point of view, the judgment and orders of the High Court cannot be upheld. The, question to be determined still is whether more than per cent. 50 of the Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872), hereinafter referred to as the Evidence Act.
nProvided that in the case of any resignation referred to in sub- clause (b), if from information received or otherwise and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or genuine, he shall not accept such resignation. Section 39 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866, therefore, con- fers no arbitrary or uncanalised discretion on the Commissioner, unguided by any criteria, and does not constitute an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on trade under Art.
(5) and the other to S. the subject of a grievance or an allegation. -This appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Orissa is from the judgment and decree of the said High Court dated March 9, 1951, by which it substantially affirmed the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur in Title Suit No. 2000, for the first time validly created a liability to pay royalty. Any levy Civil and Revenue Lawyer in Chandigarh collection prior to 03. 2006 and in the rent receipts and also filed a suit for eviction against one of the tenants in the suit property in the capacity of a landlord.
There is a finding by the Tribunal in the supplementary statement of the case that the shares held by Bipinchandra, Harishchandra and Krishnakumar were under the control of their father, Maganlal Parbhudas. 19(i)(g) of the Constitution. Two questions of law firm in Chandigarh maintenance Section 125 & 24 arise in this appeal, one relating to the interpretation of s. To that extent, the judgment is erroneous. It was observed by the Arbitral Tribunal that after the commencement of 1957 Act it was not within the powers of UP State Government to have framed UP State Rules of 1963 and consequently such Rules were not binding on the Contractor.
Considering the deposition of Abdul Karim as DW1, wherein he stated that the appellant had refused to accept the rent from him, the trial court held that the appellant had waived his right to be called a landlord. 16 of 1944 except for a modification of the decree for damages awarded by the latter. The trial court held that PW3 Ranjeet Prasad was the landlord of the suit property under section 2(c) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (in short, “Rent Act”). 70,65,039/- which was claimed on the ground that it was covered by Sub Clause 70.
2001, being after the Central Governments notification dated 03. 8 which was for refund of Royalty on ordinary earth amounting to Rs. Though the question as framed by the High Court appears to have been correctly answered in the negative, it does not dispose Suspension of Sentense Law Firm in Chandigarh the matter. 1 Contract Price shall be adjusted for increase or decrease in rates and prices of labour, materials, fuels and lubricants in accordance with the following principles and procedures and as per the formula given Solicitor in Chandigarh High Court the contract data: n(2) Subject to the provisions of the Act, an Upalokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of, any public servant not being the Chief Minister, Minister, Member of the Legislature, Secretary or other public servant refereed to in sub-section (1), in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Upalokayukta, recorded in writing.
The mutation entry in his name was held to be not proof of title in the suit property. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. In the event of a failure by Slum Rehabilitation Authority to do so, the said approval shall be deemed to have been given, provided the Project is in accordance with the provisions in this Appendix. PW3 was noted to have never stated being the representative of the appellant or there being a property exchange. Directors cannot, by reason of being Directors, be said not to be members of the public.
2 The approval to the Project shall be given by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of submission of all relevant documents. In its view, the imposition of royalty by the Government of UP vide notification dated 20. We accordingly set aside the judgment and orders of the High Court, and direct the High Court to decide the question originally framed by it, viz.
We are concerned in the present appeal with Claim No.