Senior Law Firms in India for Quashing of FIR

The Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 10 of the Act referred the existing Industrial Dispute between the concerned workmen and the Corporation to the Tribunal which rightly adjudicated point (i) of the dispute (supra) on the basis of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record and passed an award dated 26. The Additional Commissioner did not agree with the contention of the assessee holding it to be a manufacturing process, and opinion of the Additional Commissioner is accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by CEGAT.

Even if we consider the same, the said contention is contrary to the legal principles laid down by this Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad The contention urged on behalf of the Corporation that the Tribunal has no power to pass such an award compelling the Corporation to regularise the services of the concerned workmen is wholly untenable in Best law firm in Chandigarh High Court. The said plan was only at its proposal stage, which fact was taken note of by the Division Bench of the High Court in its impugned judgment.

In the said case, the Court approved what has been said by the High Court of Bombay Solicitor in Chandigarh High Court State v. Suresh Seth[30]), Gajendragadkar, J. For the sake of completeness, we reproduce the relevant paragraph:- “In State v. It is further contended by him that the said Regularisation Certificate dated 11. Normally and in the ordinary course an offence is committed only once. 8808 of 2004 was pending before the High Court. (as he then was), after quoting the observations of Beaumount, C.

The object here is not easily discernible, but perhaps is to discourage over-zealous police officers who might otherwise exert themselves to improve the statements made before them. But we may have offences which can be committed from day to day and it is offences falling in this latter category that are described as continuing offences. The High Court accordingly held that the income from the trust fund was not exempt from taxation under s. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi[28].

It is a basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. On a reading of the aforesaid judgment, it becomes clear that the object of enacting Section 4 is that transactions at arm’s length between manufacturer and wholesale purchaser which yield the price which is the sole consideration for the sale alone is contemplated.

The first restriction is that no statement made by any person to a police officer, if reduced into writing, be signed by the person making it. The problem before us is whether the High Court was right in so answering the questions. The intention behind the provision is easy to understand. Whether jurisdiction of the Tribunal to direct the Corporation to regularise the services of the concerned workmen in the posts is valid Illegal Custody and Habeas Corpus Law Firm in Chandigarh legal? 141 and was brought into force on 07.

Thus, it can be said that even before the MPD 2021 was brought into effect, the MCD went ahead with issuing Regularisation Certificate under the said plan in favour of the respondent- owners of the Pathological Lab. The legislature next provides that a statement, however recorded, or any part of it shall not be used for any purpose (save as provided in the sections at the inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time such statement is wade.

Further it has been contended by him that the MPD 2021 was notified by the Ministry of Urban Development Vide Notification No. In this context, it would be fruitful to refer to a three-Judge Bench decision in Maya Rani Punj v. The reasonable interpretation to be placed upon Section 494, in our opinion, is that it is only the Public Prosecutor, who is in charge of a particular case and is actually conducting the prosecution, that can file an application under that section, seeking permission to withdraw from the prosecution.

It is further contended by him that the MCD never sought permission of the High Court before issuing Regularisation Certificate in favour of the respondent-owners when W. 2006 which was allegedly granted under the MPD 2021 which could not have retrospective effect but in fact, is prospective in nature. 1999 directing the Corporation that the services of the concerned workmen should be regularised with effect from the date on which all of them completed 480 days, subsequent to their appointment by the memorandum of appointment.

The Latin word alibi means elsewhere and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime. The legislature probably thought that the making of statements by witnesses might be thwarted, if the witnesses were led to believe that because they had signed the statements they were bound by them, and that whether the statements were true or not, they must continue to stand by them.

If a Public Prosecutor is not in charge of a particular case and is not conducting the prosecution, he will not be entitled to ask for withdrawal from prosecution, under Section 494 of the Code. 4(3)(i) and answered both the questions in the negative. Bhiwandiwalla (a decision referred to in CWT v. in an earlier Full Bench decision of that Court observed:

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s