With great respect to the learned judges, it appears to us that they overlooked the principles laid down by the Judicial Committee in Gokul Chand v. The Chief Justice of the High Court, delivering the order of the Division Bench of that Court, granting the necessary certificate, observed that the view of the High Court that para. For the purpose of attracting the jurisdiction of a court in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the 1957 Act, the conditions precedent specified therein must be fulfilled, the requisites wherefor are that the plaintiff must actually and voluntarily reside to carry on business or personally work for gain.

The petitioner moved the Calcutta High Court for a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court. 5 (1) (a) (iii) of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, is ultra vires the Constitution of India and that the decision of the Wage Board dated April 30, 1957, is illegal and void. He certainly entered into a personal agreement with the (1) [1921] L.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contested the correctness of the opinion of the Union Public Service Commission and has suggested that the Commission had indulged in an officious opinion, because under the Union Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulations, it was not necessary to consult the Commission. 4 aforesaid, was not a ground of detention but only one of the items of evidence in support of the ground, raised a serious question to be determined by this Court, particularly because a view contrary to the one taken by the High Court in the instant case, appeared to have been taken by this Court and by the Calcutta High Court itself in a number of decisions.

211 and 212 was curable under s. Therefore, such statements were inadmissible having regard to the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. , was in conflict with the view taken by Roy, J. Such additional forum was provided so as to enable the author to file a suit who may not otherwise be in a position to file a suit at different places where his copyright was violated. Hukam Chand-Nath Mal (1) where it was pointed out that there could be no valid distinction between the direct use of the joint family fund and the use which qualified the member to make the gains on his own efforts.

, and he took the view that the Magistrate had not failed to comply with the provisions of s. 32 of the Constitution, praying for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, and a Constitution Bench, by its order dated April 20, 1959, directed that this appeal be posted for 420 hearing by a Constitution Bench, on May 11, 1959, on a cyclostyled paper book, and that the filing of the petition of appeal and the statements of cases be dispensed with.

In respect of said assault a separate case was registered and was also going on. Around this time, Brahmadeen was assaulted with lathi and dandas by Basant Lal Dubey and his sons, Lalji, Om Prakash, Gyan Prakash. It still did not choose to make a similar provision therein. It shall not be necessary to consult the Commission in regard to the selection for appointment- (a) to a Central Service, Class 1, of any Officer in the Armed Forces of the Union or any officer who is already a member of an All India Service, Central Service,Class 1, a Railway Service, Class 1.

There was then an application for a certificate to appeal to this Court which was allowed, particularly, as the view taken by Chowdhry, J. Our attention has been drawn to Regulation 3, which reads as follows so far as it is relevant for our purpose- "3. Such an omission may be held to be a conscious action on the part of the Parliament. Sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the 1957 Act provides for an additional forum.

The intention of the Parliament in not providing for an additional forum in relation to the violation of the 1958 Act is, therefore, clear and explicit. He, therefore, rejected the reference. The court shall not, it is well well-settled, readily presume the existence of jurisdiction of a court which was not conferred by the statute. The managing directorship, he held, was in fact a contract of service and it is not as if the family represented by the manager was the managing director.

208 and that non-compliance with the provisions of ss. The petitions will, therefore, be allowed and the petitioners will be entitled to an order declaring that s. The Parliament while enacting the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act in the year 1958 was aware of the provisions of the 1957 Act. The matter depended upon the testimony of Brahmadeen. It was the individual that was appointed and that was functioning as the managing director.

Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants Indra Dalal and Bijender, argued that these confessional statements were admittedly recorded after the arrest of these accused and when these accused were in police custody. , already referred to. The territorial jurisdiction conferred upon the court in terms of the provisions of the Code of civil Procedure indisputably shall apply to a suit or proceeding under the 1957 Act as also the 1958 Act.

A cause of action in a given case both under the 1957 Act as also under the 1958 Act may be overlapping to some extent. That is how this appeal has come to this Court. This reference came up for bearing before another learned Judge of the High Court, namely, Chowdhry, J. Section 25 of the Evidence Act mandates so, Advocate in Supreme Court of India (click this) certain and unequivocal terms, as is clear from the language thereof. 163/1993 was at an advanced stage of trial.

The member of the joint family entered into the Indian Civil Service no doubt by reason of his intelligence and other attainments. Besides preferring the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner moved this Court under Art. The Parliament while enacting the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provided for such an additional forum by enacting sub-section (2) of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act.