1 Vipin Singh Negi has been corroborated by Suyesh Kukreti (P. It appears that these respondents are employed by the appellant in the time office of the Parel Workshop and not in the factory itself. The complainant has lodged the FIR within half an hour on the same day. It was submitted that ˜Dying in Harness Scheme is a non-statutory scheme and is in the form of a concession and it does not create a vested right in favour of the claimant/respondent to be enforced through a writ of mandamus.

There was no contradiction in the testimonies of the abovementioned prosecution witnesses and the Sessions Judge relied on them. However, this request is declined as according to the High Court, provisions of Section 32 of the Act mandate that precedence has to be given to unabsorbed depreciation before allowing unabsorbed investment allowance. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon number of judgments: Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. The duties of these timekeepers are to maintain initial records of attendance of workshop staff, to prepare pay-sheets for them to maintain their leave accounts, to dispose of final settlement cases of the said staff and to maintain records for statistical information.

It is further contended that even if the Regional Transport Authority must fix a period of not less than three years and not more than five years, the only order that this Supreme Court of India Advocates should pass is to quash the order dated April 30, 1959, renewing the permits upto September 30, 1959, and direct the Authorities to decide the renewal applications in accordance with the law to be laid down by this Supreme Court Law firms. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The Authority considered the evidence led before it in respect of all the repondents for overtime wages.

58 of the Act it is open to a Regional Transport Authority to renew a permit for any period it chooses to fix and therefore the Authorities in this case were acting in accordance with the law when they renewed the permits of the petitioners upto September 30, 1959. As pointed out above, in the income-tax return the assessee had claimed set off of unabsorbed investment allowance. He clearly disclosed that he knew accused Som Prakash and Rishi about one year prior to this occurrence and also knew of the location of their residence.

In other words, if the conduct of the accused person subsequent to his release on bail puts in jeopardy the progress of a fair trial itself and if there is no other remedy which can be effectively used against the accused person, in such a case the inherent power of the High Court can be legitimately invoked. Learned counsel for the appellant-bank contended that consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is only in the nature of concession and, therefore, it does not create a vested right in favour of the claimant/respondent.

The petition has been opposed by the Department and the main contention on its behalf is that on a correct interpretation of s. Thus, the Trial Court convicted Dheeraj Kalra, Surabh, Rishi Kumar, Nitin @ Vippu, Som Prakash, Bhagat and Sanjeev @ Happy under Section 302 read with Section 149 of I. During cross-examination, the complainant has also stated the fact that he was nervous and due to that he omitted some details. 10,000/- was imposed on each of them.

All the accused persons were also convicted under Section 148 of I. The eye witness Vipin Singh Negi (PW-1) was also cross-examined at length, on the issue of the identity of the accused persons. It is necessary therefore to consider the scheme of Chapter IV in order to interpret s. In regard to non-bailable offences there is no need to invoke such power because s. " Like all courts of appeal exercising general jurisdiction in civil cases, the respondent has been constituted an appellate court in words of the widest amplitude and the legislature has not limited his jurisdiction by providing that such exercise will depend on the existence of any particular state of facts.

and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. It was further submitted that the compassionate appointment is justified when it is granted to provide immediate succour to the deceased-employee and cannot be granted on the passage of time and in all these cases, the concerned employee died about two decades ago and, therefore, the High Lawyer Supreme Court India was not justified in directing the appellant-bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment.

The medical examination also fully supported the case of the prosecution. However, the sentences were directed to run concurrently. That section appears in Chapter IV of the Act which deals with Control, of Transport Vehicles in which term is included " a stage carriage " with which we are concerned here. The prosecution case was further supported by the testimony of Rajeev Negi (P. It will be clear from the above contentions of the parties that the first and foremost question in this case is the interpretation of s.