Comentários do leitor

NRI Legal Services Reviews - When to deal with property concerning issues in property disputes without coming to India by Simranjeet Law Associates - NRI Legal Services Can Be Fun For Anyone

"Roxanne Krieger" (2018-12-09)

NRI-LEGAL-SERVICES.png NRI Lawyers The dominant purpose in construing a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature as NRI Legal services expressed in the statute, considering it as a whole and in NRI Legal services its context. In the present case, the words used represent the real intention of the Parliament as we have found not only from the clear words used but also from the very purpose of the vesting of the shares. It was submitted that these were situations where on the principle of doctrine of necessity a person interested was held not disqualified to adjudicate on his rights.

There are four kinds of court martials specified in Section 108 of the Army Act, 1959. See in this connection the observations of Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 44, paragraph 856 at page 522 and the cases noted therein. If we bear in mind the fact that these shares were acquired from out of the investments made by these NRI Lawyers two companies and furthermore that the assets of the company as such minus the shares were negative and further the Act in question was passed to give effect to the principles enunciated in clauses (b) and (c) of nrillegalservices Article 39 of the Constitution, we are left with no doubt that the shares vested in the Central Government by operation of sections 3 and 4 the Act.

It is the Court which would adjudicate the rights of the victims. That intention, and therefore the meaning 1000 of the statute, is primarily to be sought in the words used in the statute itself, which must, if they are plain and unambiguous, be applied as they stand. It has to be reiterated that the object of interpretation of NRI Lawyers a statute is to discover the intention of the Parliament as expressed in the Act. State of Orissa or (b) is the prosecutor or a witness for the prosecution; or (c) investigated the charges before trial, or took down the summary of evidence, NRI or was a member NRI of a court of inquiry respecting the matters on which the charges against the accused are founded, or was the squadron, battery, company, or other commander, who made preliminary inquiry into the case, or was a member of a previous court-martial which tried the accused in respect of the same offence; or (d) is the commanding officer of the accused, or of the corps to which the accused belongs; or (e) has a personal interest in the case.

We are of the opinion in the facts and the circumstances of the case that this contention urged by Union of India is right. 88 made by the detaining authority namely Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city in exercise of the powers conferred on him under sub-Section 1 of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act 1985 (hereinafter referred as the Act) with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad city.

So because of this decision shares were not taken over by the Act. " Rule 39(2) provides that an officer who is the Commanding Officer of the accused or of the corps to which the accused belongs or who is an officer who convened the court or who is the prosecutor or a witness for the prosecution and who has a personal interest in the case, is not eligible for serving on a general or district Court Martial. This is aptly summed up in the maxim: There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake.

In view of the significant difference between the objects of taking over of the assets and the taking over of the management this submission has to be stated to be rejected. 25 If the Court in supplying the information makes a mistake the responsibility of the litigant, though it does not altogether cease, is at least shared by the Court. The representation of the victims by the Govt. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. , [1984] INSC 136; [1984] 4 SCC 103, where at page 112 of the report, the Court recognised 'the principle of necessity.

The present is a case where the Govt. of India cannot be held to be bad, and there is and there was no scope of violation of any principle of natural justice.