Comentários do leitor

NRI Legal Services Canada - What to deal with property concerning legal issues in succession problems without coming to India by SimranLaw - Not known Facts About NRI Legal Services

"Rogelio Carney" (2018-12-02)

HOs9SZc.pngAnderson (6) taking the constitutional amendments, as they have been in our country, considered the Directive principles to be more potent than the Fundamental (1) Constitutional Law, 6th Edn. The court which NRI Lawyers is best placed to make such further orders may be the Court of Session. Public authorities can share information if it is NRI Lawyers lawful and proportionate to do so, but each case must be considered carefully to assess what is lawful and proportionate in the particular circumstances.

It is wrong to think of them as rights within the Parliament's giving or taking. We do not think that it is appropriate to set out the possible terms of such an order until we have received written submissions from the parties on the terms of the order, including NRI both the period of suspension and any conditions which should be attached to the order. Absolute, arbitrary power in defiance of Fundamental Rights exist nowhere under our Constitution, not even in the largest majority. The executing court may have knowledge of the order on the order being communicated to it by the court passing the stay order or the executing court may be informed of the order by one party NRI Legal services or the other with an affidavit in support of the information or in any other way.

This is because the Fundamental Rights are I so safe-guarded that within the limits set by the Constitution they are inviolate. But a mere order of stay of execution does not take away the jurisdiction of the court. Applying the principle to the present case, it is manifest that s. Fortunately, this is avoided at least in so far as the Fundamental Rights are concerned. " In view of this decision the wider interpretation of s. That kind of order takes effect immediately it is passed, for such an order takes away the very jurisdiction of the court executing the decree as there is nothing left to execute thereafter.

The Constitution has itself said what protection has been created round the person and property of the citi- zens and to what extent this protection may give way to the general good. It is clear that as soon as a stay order is withdrawn, the executing court is entitled to carry on execution and there is no question of fresh conferment of jurisdiction by the fact that the stay order has been withdrawn. As was said in Salvesen v Riddell 2013 SC (UKSC) 236, [2013] UKSC 22 (Lord Hope at para 57), if such an order is made, it may be appropriate to give permission to the Lord Advocate to return to the court for any further orders under section 102(2)(b) as may be required.

"The right to privacy in article 8 is a qualified rather than an absolute right. The reason is that no intention can be imputed to the Legislature that it would exceed its own jurisdiction. Therefore, till the order comes to the knowledge of the court its jurisdiction to carry on execution is not affected by a stay order which must in the very nature of things be treated to be a prohibitory order directing the executing court which continues to have jurisdiction to stay its hand till further orders.

It is a well-established rule that a statute has to be so read so as to make it valid; it has to be construed ut res magis valeat quam pareat. Gopal Singh contends would make the operation of the section unconstitutional. It is true that the non- proprietors also derive benefit but their satisfaction and advancement enures in the end to the advantage of the proprietors in the form of a more efficient agricultural community.

it is wrong to invoke the Directive Principles as if there is some antinomy between them and the Fundamental Rights. 18(c) must be read in a restricted sense and the authority of the Consolidation Officer to reserve land for the common purpose under S. The Directive Principles lay down the routes of State but such action must avoid the restrictions stated in the Fundamental Rights. Who is the real beneficiary ? Does such taking away of property then amount to acquisition by the State of any land ?

The jurisdiction of the court is there all along. The proprietors enjoy the benefits derived nrillegalservices from the use of and for common purposes. On the facts of this case it seems to us that the beneficiary of the modification of rights is not the State, and therefore there is no acquisition by the State within the second proviso. In a situation of this kind the principle to be applied is clear. The Panchayat as such does not enjoy any benefit. The people's representatives have, of course, inalienable NRI Legal and undisputable right to alter, reform or abolish the Government in any manner they think fit, but the declarations of the Fundamental Rights of the citizens are the inalienable rights of the people.

There can be no doubt that no action for contempt can be taken against an executing court, if it carries on execution in ignorance of the order of stay and this shows the necessity of the knowledge of the executing court before its jurisdiction can be affected by the order. As soon therefore as the executing court has come to know of the order either by communication from the court passing the stay order or by an affidavit from one party or the other or in any other way the executing court cannot proceed further and if it does so it acts illegally.

HOs9SZc.pngIle extent of the power of the rulers at any time is, measured by the Fundamental Rights. This is true of our country also regarding administration and Station. It is not of the same nature as an order allowing an appeal and quashing execution proceedings. All that it does is to prohibit the court from proceeding nrillegalservices with the execution further, and the court unless it knows of the order cannot be expected to carry it out. The Panchayat will manage it on behalf of the proprietors and use it for common purposes; it cannot use it for any other purpose.

We are of the view that this court should consider making an order under section 102(2)(b) of the Scotland Act 1998 to allow the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Ministers an opportunity, if so advised, to correct the defects which we have identified. The only effect of the stay order is to prohibit the executing court from proceeding further and that can only take effect when the executing court has knowledge of the order. In the meantime, since the defective provisions are not within the legislative competence of the nrillegalservices Parliament, they cannot be brought into force.

It is clear that the title remains in the proprietary body and in the revenue records the land would be shown as belonging to 'all the owners and other right holders in proportion to their areas'. The principle is that if two constructions of a statute are possible, one of which would make it intra vires and the other ultra vires, the Court must lean to that construction 297 which would make the operation of the section intra vires. Our Constitution enables an individual to oppose successfully the whole community and the State and claim his rights.