Comentários do leitor

NRI Legal Services Chandigarh - How to deal with property concerning legal issues in sale of property without coming to India by LexLords - How NRI Legal Services can Save You Time, Stress, and Money

"Rogelio Carney" (2018-11-28)


52 of the Excise Rules. These figures, given on behalf of the Company did, prima facie, indicate that, the rates fixed and demanded, which were challenged in the complaint, were unreasonable. Consequently, it appears that, in respect of a commodity carried by a railway over its own railway lines, the NRI Lawyers only charge that the Railway can levy, and which can be the subject-matter of a complaint under s. The changes were said to reflect the Government’s and Parliament’s view of how, as a matter of public policy, the balance should be struck between the right to respect for private and family life and the public interest in public safety by protecting the public from foreign criminals: Statement of Intent: Family Migration, Home Office, June 2012, para 33.

NRI-LEGAL-SERVICES.pngFurther, the new rate of Re. 41(1)(c) relates nrillegalservices to a complaint in respect of any other charge mentioned in s. There does not appear to be any other statutory duty in respect of which any other charge could be levied by the Railway, and, consequently, if the inter- pretation sought to be put on behalf of the Railway is accepted, the result would be that s. 29(2) will become ineffective and redundant, because there would be no other charges in respect of which fixation of rates by the Central Government would be required.

It appears to us, in these circumstances, that the expression "any other charge" used in s. In the statement of facts and issues, the parties have identified the critical issue in these terms: In order to set aside a compromise on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation, nrillegalservices to show the requisite influence by or reliance on the misrepresentation, The company also obtained gate pass. 1/- per wagon was, per se unreasonable inasmuch as the cost incurred by the Railway on shunting the wagons could not be in propor- tion to the number of wagons shunted and could not, in any case, be so high as to justify this rate even in cases when a large number of wagons were shunted together in one single shunt.

It is clear that a complaint under s. 41(1)(b) relates to fixation of a rate relating to charges mentioned in s. It is apparent from the documents which accompanied the Statement of Changes that the changes to the Rules were intended to promote consistency, predictability and transparency in decision-making where issues under article 8 arose, and to clarify the policy framework. 41(1)(c) cannot be given the narrow meaning of covering a charge in respect of the 227 Statutory duty of the Railway so as to exclude charges made or levied by the Railway for all other services.

Thus, addressing an objection that there was "no more reason that an action should be maintainable in this case (ie for a malicious indictment) than where a civil action is sued without cause, for which no action will lie" Holt CJ said (taking the report at 1 Ld Raym 374): The idea that the new rules comprise a complete code appears to have been mistakenly interpreted in some later cases as meaning that the Rules, and the Rules alone, govern appellate decision-making.

212/per year, while, after the enhancement by the notice dated 8th February, 1958, the charges were so fixed that the burden on the Company rose to amounts in the next three years varying between Rs. The changes were also intended to align the Rules with the body of case law concerning article 8, and in particular to reflect a consideration of the proportionality of deportation in accordance with article 8: paras 36-38. On February 28, 1961, the appellant company loaded 13 more wagons and cleared them.

HOs9SZc.pngSimilarly, the provision contained in s. In this connection, the language used in clauses (b) and (c) of S. Consequently, it was competent for the Tribunal to call upon the parties to adduce evidence and to determine what would be the reasonable rates according to the Tribunal itself. On NRI Legal February 27, 1961, the appellant company loaded 20 wagons of paper after effecting clearance of these goods by payment of the excise duty under r.

41(1)(b), will be the charge NRI for carriage of the ,commodity between two stations and it would be in respect of the discharge by the Railway of its statutory duty of carrying goods between stations maintained by it. 41(1)(c) would also be redundant, as there would be no other charges in respect of which a complaint could be filed under this provision. Dicta seemingly to that effect can be found, for example, in LC (China) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1310; [2015] Imm AR 227, para 17, and AJ (Angola) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1636, para 39.

According to the Company, thus, the siding charges were fixed in such a manner that, after enhancement, the charges payable became 70 to 80 times the charges originally payable under the agreement of 1933. These wagons were NRI Legal sealed by the railway administration and railway receipts were issued to the appellant company. That being the factual position, we cannot hold that the Tribunal committed any error in going into the evidence given on behalf of the Railway and arriving at the reasonable rates, after a full consideration of that evidence and the evidence tendered on behalf of the Company.