SimranLaw DUI Advocate Chandigarh - How To Prevent Yourself From Needing One Simran Law 815 Sector 16 D Chandigarh 160015
Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZwQO2ELNZ9SWs2PbOLACpg. 23690/2009 and 23196/2009 (CS-DAS) respectively. As a result, the writ petitions filed by the auction purchaser and the Bank were dismissed by a common judgment dated 11. This Court observed that there was no monitoring or evaluation of the progress of work and utilization of the huge amount of money that was released to the State Governments. The auction purchaser and the bank being aggrieved by the order passed by the DRCS, preferred Writ Petition No.
2015, an affidavit was handed over in Court on behalf of the Union of India. No question whatever arises of tacking of the period of detention under one law to the period of detention under another law, inas- much as the detention under the earlier law automatically terminates with the repeal of section 12 of Act IV of 1950. One of these objections is based on the absence of ratifica- tion under article 368. These arti- cles so far as they are material here, run thus :-- 31A. In the second case, special leave to appeal was granted by this Court under article 136(1) of the Con- stitution.
--(1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this part, no law providing for the acquisi- tion by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or for the extinguishment or modification of any such rights shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is incon- sistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by, any provisions of this Part :-- * * * * 31B.
The Ministry was directed to file an affidavit giving an account of the expenditure incurred and also the audit that was conducted for the funds that were released. In that, the property consisted of a building and also vacant property. It seems to me that the law declared by the amended statute is not the same law as was declared by the original statute and to that extent the amended statute is in the nature of Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu a new and independent statute. The argument proceeds on a misconception.
Saving of laws providing for acquisition of es- tates, etc. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the reason recorded by the Appellate Authority (DRCS) was just and proper and did not warrant any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. exercised such powers and this Court had entertained appeals. Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in article :31A, none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the 108 provisions thereof shall be deemed to be void, or ever to have become void, on the ground that such Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by, any provisions of this Part, and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu order of any court or tribunal to the contrary, each of the said Acts and Regulations shall, subject to Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu the power of any competent Legislature to repeal or amend it, continue in force.
The new law admittedly standing by itself does not authorize detention of any person beyond a period of three months except in the manner provided by article 22(4) of the Constitution. The law declared by section 12 of the amended Act is in the nature of a substituted provi- sion. It was therefore submitted that the newly inserted articles required ratification under the proviso to article 368. The law declared by that section has been abrogated. The petitioners are being detained today by 636 force of the provisions contained in sections 9 and 12 of the amended Act and not under the law that was passed in 1950, as by repeal of section 12 of that Act their detention under it technically terminated.
It was said that, before these articles were inserted by the Amending Act, the High Courts had the power under article 226 of the Constitution to issue appropriate writs declaring the Zemindari Abolition Acts unconstitutional as contravening fundamental rights, and this Court could entertain appeals from the orders of the High Courts under article 132 or article 136. 1,000 crores was made available to the States/UTs as on 31. This Court examined the said affidavit and the final status report relied upon in the affidavit filed earlier on 20.
He opined that considering the wide difference between the high value of the property and the awarded amount, there was no necessity to sell the entire property. In the first case, leave to appeal to this Court was granted by the High Court under article 134(1)(c) of the Constitu- tion of India. Section 12 of the original statute has been completely repealed and no longer exists. The appeals were heard together, but as they are by different parties and the facts are different, it is desirable to have two separate judgments.
Validation of certain Acts and Regulations. These writ petitions were heard by the learned Single Judge. This Court referred to the non-utilization of funds by the States of Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Assam and Kerala. As a matter of fact, some High Courts had. It was stated by the Union of India that an amount of around Rs. The new articles, however, deprive the High Courts as well as this Court of the power of declaring the said Acts unconstitutional, and thereby seek to make changes in Ch.
