80s toys - Atari. I still have
Practically two a long time just before this, in 1808, Supreme Court Lawyer on returning to Chandigarh following browsing his estates had involuntarily discovered himself in a foremost placement among the Chandigarh Supreme Court Lawyers .

Client Centric Advocates in Supreme Court of India - Simranjeet Law Associates 815, Sec 16D,.

It is stated that the prohibition is against any remuneration in the nature of profit sharing being fixed under a contract of service between the bank and its employees and it is contended that the legislature made the-prohibition dependent on the terms of employment. It is submitted that the adjudication of an industrial tribunal in awarding bonus does not create any obligation by act of parties, and even if it imports some kind of implied term, it is de hors the contract of employment and is the result of a judicial verdict under the industrial law.

It seems to us that Section 11 applies to a situation where the guardianship of a child is sought by a third party, thereby making it essential for the welfare of the child being given in adoption to garner the views of childs natural parents. The apprehensions of Mr. These arguments are based on the amendments made in 1956. The views of an uninvolved father are not essential, in our opinion, to protect the interests of a child born out of wedlock and being raised solely by his/her mother.

Section 10 as amended by the Banking Companies (Amendment) Act, 1956 (XCV of 1956) reads, in so far as it is relevent for our purpose- S. 10 as amended by the Act Of I956 does not stand in the way of the grant of industrial bonus, for the period relating to the present appeals, the amended section had no retrospective effect. Consequently, though s. Luthra, learned amicus curiae, are accordingly addressed We may reiterate that even in the face of the express terms of the statute, this Court had in Laxmi Kant Pandey directed that notice should not be sent to the parents, as that was likely to jeopardize the future and interest of the child who was being adopted.

Dealing with the maintainability of the appeal, the two-Judge Bench held that:- The learned Single Judge of the High Court, in our opinion, committed an error in interfering with the findings of fact arrived at by the Board of Revenue. No Banking Company (a)shall employ or be managed by a managing agent ; or (b) shall employ or continue the employment of any person (i) who is, or at any time has been, adjudicated insolvent or has suspended payment or has compounded with his creditors, or who is, or has been, convicted by a criminal Supreme Court India advocates, of an offence Involving (ii)whose remuneration or part of whose remuneration takes the form of commission or of a share in the profits of the company: In a case where one of the parents petitions the Court for appointment as guardian of her child, we think that the provisions of Section 11 would not be directly applicable.

', refers to the contractual relationship of employer and employee created by an act of parties, and its purpose is to put a, ban on one kind of employment of a person who is to be paid a particular remuneration under the terms of his employment. A letters patent appeal was preferred challenging the order of the learned Single Judge which opined that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was not maintainable as he had exercised the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

We must now notice two other arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent workmen. Sales Officer, District Land Development Bank and Others[37], a recovery proceeding was initiated by the respondent-Bank therein and the land mortgaged to the Bank were sold. The sole factor for consideration before us, therefore, is the welfare of the minor child, regardless of the rights of the parents. (1), it does not purport to explain any former law or declare what the law has always been.

We should not be misunderstood as having given our imprimatur to an attempt by one of the spouses to unilaterally seek custody of a child from the marriage behind the back of other spouse. The order passed by the Board of Revenue was called in question by the District Land Development Bank, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha[38] An appeal preferred before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies was dismissed and a further appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue which interfered with the order passed by the Joint Registrar.

(4) The Banking Companies (Amendment) Act, 1956, is not a declaratory Act, and except in the small matter of the expression " shall continue to employ " in sub-s. He has put his argument in the following way: section 10, when it says that I no banking company shall employ a person etc. "(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), a "district court having jurisdiction" shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, include a district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or other proceeding or, where there are more than one such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.

The Division Bench of the High Court also wrongly dismissed the LPA without noticing that an appeal would be maintainable if the writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as was held by this Court in Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar v.
Back to posts
This post has no comments - be the first one!