Database error: Invalid SQL: select * from pwn_comment where pid='4213' and iffb='1' order by id limit 0,10
MySQL Error: 1030 (Got error 134 from storage engine)
#0 dbbase_sql->halt(Invalid SQL: select * from pwn_comment where pid='4213' and iffb='1' order by id limit 0,10) called at [D:\zzzxiaobu2\sipenet.com\includes\db.inc.php:73] #1 dbbase_sql->query(select * from {P}_comment where pid='4213' and iffb='1' order by id limit 0,10) called at [D:\zzzxiaobu2\sipenet.com\comment\module\CommentContent.php:167] #2 CommentContent() called at [D:\zzzxiaobu2\sipenet.com\includes\common.inc.php:518] #3 printpage() called at [D:\zzzxiaobu2\sipenet.com\comment\html\index.php:13] 留言点评-
图片
网站标志
点评搜索
 
 
会员登录
登录账号:
登录密码:
验 证 码:
您好,您已登录
您有条新到站内短信
会员中心 退出登录
 
 
点评详情
发布于:2018-10-27 23:49:30  访问:94 次 回复:0 篇
版主管理 | 推荐 | 删除 | 删除并扣分
SimranLaw Chandigarh - Considerations To Know About Lawyer In Chandigarh NRI Legal Services Chandigarh
Therefore, while determining their permissible area, the surplus area out of the land holding of writ petitioner no. 724, 725 and 726 of 1945. (3) Nothing contained in this section shall affect the posts of the teachers of the University to be filled by direct appointment Lawyers Jobs In Chandigarh accordance with the provisions of Section 31. The individual holding of all petitioners except writ petitioner no. Directory Of Advocates In Chandigarh The respondent carried appeals to the Advocate High Court against these orders of the District Judge being A.
The High Court refused to entertain that argument in view of the conclusion reached by it as above and also negatived the contention which was urged on behalf of the appellant before it that the provision for such payment in the partition decree was an " owelty provision " observing that all that was meant was equality and all that the expression " owelty provision" in the context implied was a provision for adjustment or equalization of shares and no more.
835 question whether it is property so as to attract the protection of fundamental rights under the Constitution. Their individual land holdings cannot be clubbed together for determining permissible area under Section 4 of the Act and such petitioners are entitled to one unit individually under the Act. 28,15,000, from the Tropical account to the Bank of India and took delivery of 61,394 shares of the Jupiter from the Bank of India and the Punjab National Bank then held those shares for the Tropical in the Tropical account and Khaitan was paid on the last date stipulated.
A further argument was advanced before the High Court and it was that a provision in a partition decree for a mere payment by one co-sharer to another of a sum of money for equalisation of shares per se constituted a charge by operation of law over the share allotted to the sharer made liable for the payment without any creation of charge by the Court by express language or necessary implication. such qualifications, as may be prescribed. A perusal of Section 31A reveals, that a scheme of personal promotion is contemplated for Lecturers, who can be promoted as Readers; and for Readers, who can be promoted as Professors.
Section 31A also contemplates that eligibility for promotion under the Personal Promotion Scheme would be determined on the basis of . 1976 passed by the District Collector but other orders passed subsequent to that order are not in accordance with the Act. As a result of 173 the previous instructions given on January 19, by Mehta, to the Punjab National Bank, the Bank paid on January, 20, a sum of Rs. It would appear that including the 1,250 qualifying shares previously transferred, the shares transferred by Khaitan fell short of the 63,000 shares, by 356 shares, but the deficit appears to have been made up very shortly thereafter.
All these five cheques were deposited into the Tropical account of the Punjab National Bank by a pay-in-slip dated January 20, 1949, alleged to be in the handwriting of Guha and signed by him on the 19th. The High Court also expressed the opinion that even assuming there was no res-judicata in his favour, the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act being what they were, the appellant could claim no priority if his position as a secured creditor as defined in s.
1 only is to be excluded, the others do not have any surplus area as their individual holding is within the permissible limits of the Act. If the totality of, the bundle of rights of the quasi-permanent allottee in the evacuee land constituting an interest Lawyer in High Court Chandigarh such land, is not property entitled to protection of fundamental rights, mere possession of the land by virtue of such interest is not on any higher footing. The High Court appreciated the force of the arguments advanced before it on behalf of the -appellant but felt itself bound by the construction put upon the judgment and decree by the High Court on November 5, 1953, observing that even if that construction were not strictly binding on it as a decision on a pure question of law in the nature of a judicial precedent by another Division Bench of that Court would undoubtedly be, it would feel highly loath to deny it the respect to which it was entitled at its hands in the interests of judicial comity, 783 whatever be the construction which it would have imposed upon the same, had the question arisen for the first time before it.
The order of the learned District Judge was set aside, and E. It, therefore, held that the appellant was debarred by the principles of constructive res-judicata from raising other grounds of priority or preference after remand which had no relation to the decree which was the basis of the E. It has been urged that in sub-section (4) of Section 4 adult son of a landowner is entitled to a separate unit up to the extent permissible to a ˜family under sub-section (1) and (2) but once adult son himself is a landowner in his own right, then he is entitled to hold permissible area under the Act in his individual capacity and he cannot be confined to have separate unit up to the extent permissible to a family.
The total of these cheques comes to Rs. 1 is far below permissible area. The High Court accordingly came to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to the restitution sought by him and allowed the ;appeals with costs before it and in the Court below. It was argued before the High Court that the order dated 22. (2) (e) of the Act could not be sustained. Before the High Court Lawyers Court, respondents pleaded that the writ petitioners in their own right are individual landowners before the appointed day under the Act.
共0篇回复 每页10篇 页次:1/1
共0篇回复 每页10篇 页次:1/1
我要回复
回复内容
验 证 码
看不清?更换一张
匿名发表 
访问统计
脚注信息

幸运飞艇官网公司网站 Copyright(C)2009-2010