About Advocate in Chandigarh

asked 2018-10-25 03:40:51 -0500

AlicaUnder gravatar image

In the result, in Title Suit No. The definition of public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 21 of the Penal Code is of no consequence. , on false representation, and thirdly because Mr. Then, as regards the deed dated Advocates [click to read more] 1-6-1937, the learned Judges agreed with the Subordinate Judge that it was invalid on both the grounds given by him. However, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, with which we are concerned in the present appeal, the term public servant has been defined under Section 2(c) thereof.

Further in view of language of Section 87 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Penal Code. MacGregor, the then manager of the Court of Wards, was acting in his own interests and adversely to those of the minor ward, and the Court of Wards had been misled by him into entering into the transaction. Section 2 of this Act defines public servant to mean public servant as defined under Section 21 of the Penal Code.

125 of 1943 were dismissed. In our opinion, prosecution under this Act can take place only of such persons, who come within the definition of public servant therein. Against this judgment, the present appeals have been preferred by the company, C. Though the conditions of service prescribed by the Rules can be varied Advocates (click to read more) unilaterally in some cases because of the "pleasure" of the President, they cannot be ignored as long as they stand, and if they are infringed while in force, Art.

They also held that it 333 was not binding on the Raja, firstly because its terms were not beneficial to him, secondly because it had been obtained by Messrs Bird and Co. Under the scheme of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act it is evident that the appellant happens to be a Councillor and a Member of the Board. The learned Judges agreed with the Subordinate Judge that the Court of Wards was competent to grant a prospecting license, but they were of opinion that it had not applied its mind to certain important aspects of the transaction, that the interests of the ward bad suffered in consequence, and that the deed dated 26-3-1915 was therefore not valid.

The state of affairs reflected above continues even now. 191 of 1953 being directed against the decree in F. The appellant is sought to be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and, hence, to determine his status it would be necessary to look into its interpretation under Section 2(c) thereof, read with the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. 82 of 1940 a declaration was made that the deeds dated 26-3- 1915, 26-11-1917 and 1-6-1937 as well as the leases granted pursuant thereto were void and a decree passed in favour of the Raja for possession of the demised properties with mesne profits, past and future.

127 of 1943 against that in Title Suit No. Against this judgment, the Raja preferred appeals to the Advocates - click to read more, High Court of Patna, F. The company also filed cross-objections in F. The stock reply of the ASI is that it has not been able to complete the survey as it is not getting police protection. For these reasons, the learned Judges held that the deed dated 23-11- 1937 was void and inoperative as against the ward. If the legislature itself had done here what the Central Board of Revenue 285 has done and had passed an Act in the bald terms Advocates (check out this site) of the order made here transferring the case of this petitioner, picked out from others in a like situation, from one State to another, or from one end of India to the other, without specifying any object and without giving any reason, it would in my judgment, have been bad.

Had this been a case of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 then this would have been the end of the matter. 311 will be attracted in an appropriate case. 28 of 1940 instituted by the appellant for specific performance and the cross-objections filed by it in F. I am unable to see how the position is bettered because the Central Board of Revenue has done this and not Parliament. Dealing next with the deed dated 23-11-1917, they held that it was void, because the Court of Wards had not sanctioned it.

125 of 1943 against the decree in Title Suit No. The heart and core of a democracy lies in the judicial process, and that means independent and fearless judges free from executive control brought up in judicial traditions and trained to judicial ways of working and thinking. In this backdrop, we have heard the matter. Under the Constitution, Acts of Parliament are subject to judicial review particularly when they are said to infringe fundamental rights, therefore, if under the Constitution Parliament itself has not uncontrolled freedom of action, it is evident that it cannot invest lesser authorities with that power.

The main bulwarks of liberty and freedom lie there and it is clear to me that uncontrolled powers of discrimination in matters that seriously affect the lives and properties of people cannot be left to executive or quasi executive bodies even if they exercise quasi judicial functions because they are then invested with an authority that even Parliament does not possess.

edit retag flag offensive close delete