Facts About Lawyer in Chandigarh Revealed

The rules distinctly provide that the allowance will not be ad- raissible to those who occupy Government quarters or to those to whom such quarters have been offered but who have refused to take advantage of the offer. Gazette Extraordinary dated 15th July, 1953). In Advocates (hop over to this website) exercise of the rule-making power conferred by section 28 of the Act, the U. This is the impugned Act the Advocates – navigate to these guys – vires of which is challenged in these Petitions. It would be relevant to mention, that the initiation of proceedings under the SAFEMA Act against the appellant, were based on Section 2 of SAFEMA Act.

The implied repeal of an earlier law can be inferred only where there is enactment of a later law which had the power to override the earlier law and is totally inconsistent with the earlier law and the two laws cannot stand together. The house rent allowance is Advocates (navigate to these guys) Advocates (navigate to these guys) admissible only so long as an employee is stationed at one of the specified places and has not been offered Government quarters. 33) So far as the issue pertaining to exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court while hearing revision petition arising out of eviction matter is concerned, it remains no more res integra and stands settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs.

The performance report forwarded by ASD (Mbi)/BCF wherein all parameters of the cells were examined, indicates satisfactory test results. The question, however, remains whether, in uttering these slogans, they committed an offence under section 9 of the Act. Government also, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 16 of the Act, promulgated the U. In this regard, in the written submission filed by UOI, it is stated as under:- 8.

All these related to the supply and purchase of sugarcane in U. Section 2(2)(b) of the SAFEMA Act is extracted below: To such a case, the rule of implied repeal may result in a vacuum which the law making authority may not have intended. The argument on behalf of the 1st respondent would have been valid if the rules in terms Advocates, navigate to these guys, contemplated the grant of house rent allowance to every employee of a particular category but the rules do not make the grant in such absolute terms.

PANCHAYAT is defined under Article 243(d)[2]. The Bill is being introduced in order to provide for a rational distribution of sugarcane to factories, for its development on organised 406 scientific lines, to protect the interests of the cane growers and of the industry and to put the new Act permanently on the Statute Book” (Vide Statement of objects and reasons published in the U. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954. E47CPC/14, dated 1st December 1947, issued by the Railway Board.

Whoever- (a) makes any speech, or (b) by words, whether spoken or written, or by signs or by visible or audible representations or otherwise publishes any statement, rumour or report, shall, if such speech, statement, rumour or report undermines the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or amounts to contempt of Court, defama- 479 tion or incitement to an offence prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, or tends to overthrow the State, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with both”.

Under Article 243B[1], it is stipulated that there shall be constituted in every State, Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels (hereinafter collectively referred to as PANCHAYATS) in accordance with provisions of Part IX. Test cells were received at BCF, Sewri in January 2015. Once an employee of the description given above has been offered suitable house accommodation and he has refused it, he ceases to be entitled to the house rent allowance and that allowance thus ceases to be “wages” within the meaning of the definition in the Act, because it is no more payable under the terms of the contract.

If the later law is not capable of taking the place of the earlier law, and for some reason cannot be implemented, the earlier law would continue to operate. Government made the U. The State Governments are now only concerned with the supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories. Charging/discharging trials commenced wherein charging parameters were examined and found to be satisfactory. 2014 and the trials were validated by CQAE, Secunderabad.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the rival parties agitated their claims, on the basis of the interpretation of Section 2(2)(b) of the SAFEMA Act. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78. Section 9 of the Act reads as follows– “9. Whilst, it was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that proceedings could not be initiated against the appellant, under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the SAFEMA Act, it was the contention of the learned counsel representing the Competent Authority, as well as, the State of Gujarat, that the mandate of Section 2(2)(b)is clear and explicit.

However, there was delay on the part of the respondent and finally the trial of test cells was completed on 14. On the evidence on record, there is no doubt that the appellants were members of the procession and did utter those slogans against the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government,. Sugarcane Supply and Purchase Order, 1954, which came into effect from 19th September, 1954.

Lodha, the learned Chief Justice speaking for the Bench held in para 43 thus: Because the appellant does not fall in any of the exceptions contemplated through provisos (i) to (iv) thereof, the proceedings initiated against the appellant were well within the justification of law.