LexLords NRI Legal Services in India by NRI Legal Services LexLords

Until such guidelines are framed, the prayer of M/s. The fact that GYT-TPL JV made constructions in a metropolitan city or in a metropolitan area during the execution of the Pearl River Delta inter- city high speed railway project, does not make that project an intra-city metro rail project - it continues to be an inter-city railway project. If there was consent in fact, it is immaterial that it was induced by fraud or misrepresentation and in the determination of this matter, no principle of criminal law' and much less the technicalities of the English criminal law should be imported. He was duly considered for the available shops in Okhla with the persons displaced from Phool Mandi, Darya Ganj who were eligible for an alternative allotment of shops, but he could not succeed. Formation of sites and construction of houses to the members of the trinity House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. Permission for export must be governed by norms and parameters of general application as distinguished from ad hoc decisions in individual cases. Mullick, who presented the appellant's case with commendable fairness and ability, has argued before us that on the facts of this case the appellate court ought to have held that the plaintiff did acquire the rights of a pledgee in respect to the disputed shares under the provision of section 30 (2), Sale of Goods Act. On the facts the learned counsel argues that the defendant's agent really consented to part with the possession of the shares and allow Mukherjee to have them, although he was duped by the false promise given by Mukherjee which the latter never intended to keep. Insofar as the statements made on behalf of M/s. There is no dispute, he NRI Legal Services - https://lexlords.com/criminal-appeal/ says, that there was a valid contract of sale regarding these shares between Bhuiya, the real owner, and Mukherjee; and that the plaintiff was a bona fide pledgee from Mukherjee without notice of any other's rights has been found as a fact by the trial Judge and this finding has not been reversed in appeal. Shri Shyam Divan, learned amicus curiae, may at an appropriate stage, mention the matter so for as NRI Legal Services - https://lexlords.com/child-custody-and-child-abduction/ the issues relating to continuance of the special dispensation in favour of NMDC and norms to govern exports are concerned. However, since his claim has been under consideration since long, he could be considered with other eligible applicants, for allotment of shop, subject to a surplus shop being available. Inability to sell on account of higher prices cannot be a ground for export NRI Legal Services - https://lexlords.com/landlord-tenant-disputes-management-nri-property-in... of the mineral, at least at this stage of developments pursuant to the final order dated 18. Vedanta Limited are concerned, all we would like to observe, at this stage, is that the inability of M/s. The Appellant filed compensation application No. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the respondent- writ petitioner is no longer to be displaced from his existing place of business. Section 11 lays down what action the Government is to take after the Advisory Board has submitted its report. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that he has been discriminated against or otherwise denied fairness in action. It is argued by the learned counsel that the word " possession" used in the section means nothing else but physical custody and whether there was consent of 397 the owner or not has to be determined with reference to the 2definition of "consent" as given in section 13 of the Indian Contract Act. 423 We desire to point out that, the order which the Government purported to make in this caseunder section 11 of the Preventive Detention Act is notone in conformity with the provision of that section. Vedanta Limited to sell the output from its leases, as expressed, could very well be because of the pricing patterns adopted by it. at Avalahalli and Herohalli, Yelahanka hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District. We have also noted the stand of the appellant that Gazipur Mandi shops are for NRI Legal Services - https://lexlords.com/maintenance/ the allotment of shops to persons who have been displaced from Shahadra, in which category the case of the respondent does not fall. Vedanta Limited for export of its iron ore cannot be granted. 45 of 2001 under Section 12-B read with Section 36-A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act, 1969, which was rejected by the MRTP Commission, New Delhi by its Order dated 17-08-2005. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal. The only other thing necessary to entitle the plaintiff to claim the protection of section 30 (2) of the Act is to show that Mukheriee obtained possession of the shares with the consent of the seller or his agent, and it is on this point alone that the courts below have' taken divergent views. Thus, strictly speaking, the writ petitioner has no NRI Legal Services - https://lexlords.com/nri-legal-services-in-united-kingdom-uk/ right for allotment of a shop at Gazipur. So far as issue of framing of guidelines/norms for exports are concerned, the same will be dealt with separately at an appropriate time and stage. If in the opinion of the Board there is sufficient reason for the detention of a person, the Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention for such period as it thinks proper.