Comentários do leitor

NRI Legal Services London - When to deal with property concerning legalities in sale of property without coming to India by LexLords - NRI Legal Services Secrets

"Roxanne Krieger" (2018-12-09)

Page 545 on which reliance was next placed was a case where the question arose as to whether establishments in public sector were covered by the provisions of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. Dharma resisted the suit on the ground that Pandurang was not entitled to claim any share in the properties which originally belonged to the joint family in view of clause (c) of the proviso to section 12 of the Act and the properties which had been sold by him in favour of third parties could not in any event be the subject-matter of the partition suit.

PXadhAr.pngChampabai had instituted a suit for maintenance against Dharma and obtained a decree for maintenance. Hargopal and others, [1987] 1 L. There was no chance of its abolition at all. The Act came into force on 1080 21st December, 1956. Union of India and others v. In the circumstances by appointing the Judicial officers of the Higher Judicial Service to temporary posts instead of appointing them to permanent posts the Delhi Administration has virtually made a mockery of the rules of recruitment.

Under the law, as it stood then, Champabai had only a right of maintenance in the joint family properties. At this stage we have to observe that no innocent officer should 271 be exposed to the grave risk to which the petitioner has been exposed in this case. If the Schedule had been amended from time to time by increasing the number of posts keeping pace with the reality of the situation perhaps the strength should have been increased to 50 by now. Miragu died issueless in the year 1928 leaving behind him his widow Champabai-respondent No.

Yet it was called a temporary because it was in excess of the strength of the posts in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service which had been fixed at 16 by rule 4 read with the Schedule attached to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules in the year 1970. 3 and 17 for consideration. To place a Judicial officer, promoted to the Higher Judicial Service, on probation nearly 9 years after his promotion as in this case is a mere farce. Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the liability for payment of interest has been correctly fastened on the appellant be- cause of its failure to discharge the statu- 105 tory obligation of making the requisite statement on oath under section 226(3)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 till 5.

The properties owned by the joint family of Dharma and Miragu passed on to nrillegalservices the hands of Dharma who was the sole surviving coparcener on the death of Miragu. having accepted and registered the absolute assignment made by the insured G. The post to which he was promoted was called a temporary post although truly it was not a temporary post. Before the said adoption took place, two items of the joint family properties had been sold in favour of Defendant Nos.

HOs9SZc.png457 of 1968 on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barsi for partition and separate possession of one-half share in the properties of the joint family of which Dharma, the NRI Legal appellant herein, and Miragu were coparceners. We are told that the reason for not placing a judicial officer on probation on NRI Lawyers his appointment is that the strength of the cadre is fixed at Neither the High Court nor the Delhi Administration ever believed that the post to which the petitioner was promoted would ever cease to exist.

One Shamrao, who was governed by the Mitakshara Hindu Law died leaving behind him two sons Dharma (the appellant in this appeal) and Miragu. In connection with th is aspect this Court observed as follows: authority did not make any reference to the criminal ca se launched against the petitioner, much less to the fact th at the prosecution had been dropped or the date when the pet i- tioner was discharged from the case. 1968 she took Pandurang, the 1st respondent, in adoption and nrillegalservices immediately thereafter a suit NRI Lawyers was filed by Pandurang and Champabai in Regular Civil Suit No.

In the instant case, the petitioner was promoted as an Additional District and Sessions Judge under rule 16 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules in 1976. Ordinarily an officer should be on probation from the date of his appointment and if he is found unsuitable NRI Lawyers within the period of probation he should be weeded out of service. In the context of certain executive instructions issued by the Government of India it was held that while the Government was at perfect liberty to issue instructions to its own departments and organisations provided the instructions do not contravene any constitutional provision or any statute, these instructions cannot bind other bodies which are created NRI Lawyers by statute and which function under the authority of a statute.

This decision also obviously is of no assistance in deciding the point which has been raised in the instant cases. Rule 12(2) of the said Rules states that all candidates, other than those NRI Legal appointed at the initial constitution of the Service on appointment to the Service shall be on probation for a period of two years.