33 of the Act and that with Art. 2, 4 and 6 were nominated for the reserved seat. But that was not the case he had made out either before the District Court under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act or in the plaint filed in this case. 31(1) of the Act, while compliance with Art. 3, would not be identical with the particulars which we have called the third part of the order. If it had considered that letter issued to both these workmen, it would not have fallen into this serious error which has vitiated its award in respect of them.

311(2) of the Constitu- tion. The Tribunal further proceeded to comment on the evidence led before the inquiring officer and remarked that the evidence was meager or insufficient. Thus our conclusion is that the Bank has failed to prove that the conduct of the strikers as found by the appellate tribunal amounted to criminal trespass under s. It is thus clear from the section (1) (1935) I. Having thus provided for the recovery of the tax charged under s.

But those particulars may contain such details of facts as may not be communicated, in public interest, to the person detained. "The wording of the section (s. The State Government, as also the Central Government, would, naturally, be placed in possession of all the relevant facts and particulars on which the order of detention has been passed. It has completely omitted to consider the letter issued to both these workmen on May 7, giving full particulars of the charges against them.

King-Emperor (1) on which reliance was placed by the Bank is wholly inconsistent with the contention raised by it. 311(2) of the Constitution made the order of dismissal final. 3(1), which we may call the 'Preamble', and secondly, the grounds contemplated by s. para (d) contained the ground under s. It provides that no dealer who is not a registered dealer shall realise any amount by way of tax on sale of goods from purchasers nor shall any registered dealer make any collection of tax except in accordance with such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed.

In view of these considerations, the dismissal order made by the appellants on a proper inquiry, after giving the workmen concerned sufficient opportunity of explaining their conduct, must be upheld. But it has to be noted that the particular,, referred to in sub-ss. Lawyers in Supreme Court of India the case of these two employees, there is no finding by the Tribunal that the order of dismissal against them, was actuated by any mala fides, or was an act of victimization. " We also think that the Tribunal should have permitted the amendment because the ground of attack had been clearly made out and the only mistake committed by the appellant was not to put it in proper words," In short, the view of the High Court was that sub.

No objection was taken before the Returning Officer in respect _of the nomination of either the appellant or respondent No. The appellant and respondent No. 33 only avoided the penalty under s. This case arose out of an election held in December, 1951, for the double member Lakhnadon Legislative Assembly Constituency in Madhya Pradesh, one of the seats being reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The order of the Tribunal in respect of the other six workmen, is confirmed.

lf the grounds do not contain all the particulars necessary for enabling the detenu to make his representation against the order of his detention, he may ask for further particulars of the facts, and the authority which passed the order of detention is expected to furnish all that information, subject, of course, to the provisions of sub-s. The appeal in respect of these two workmen, must, therefore, be allowed, and the order of the Tribunal in respect of them, accordingly, set aside.

54) thus very clearly indicates that a transfer of the nature mentioned therein is voidable as against the receiver and is not void ab initio and may be annulled by the Supreme Court of India Advocates. That takes us to the proviso to s. 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act and what was asked for by way of amendment was only a clarification of that ground. Consequently, where, as in the present case, the plaintiff brought a suit for pre-emption and the question for determination was one of fact, namely, whether the plaintiff had performed the essential ceremonies of Talab-E-Mowasibat and Talab-E-Ishtashad, and the trial court believed his witnesses, not because it had been impressed by their demearour, and the High Supreme Court India lawyers, in appeal disbelieved them in the light of the probabilities of the case and reversed the decision of the trial court.

7, namely, the conclusions of fact which have led to the passing of the order of detention, informing the detenu as to why he was being detained. In recording this finding, the Tribunal has fallen into a grievous error of record. 2 were declared elected to the general and reserved seat respectively. 14A in effect authorises registered dealers to reimburse their dues by making collections of the tax payable by them in accordance with the restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed.

It also observed that the " degree of proof, even in the departmental enquiry, is the same as required in a Supreme Court of India Lawyer of Law ". Thus, the order of detention to be served upon the person detained would usually consist of the first two parts, namely, the preamble and the grounds, but it may also consist of the third part, namely, the 423 particulars, if and when they are required or found to be necessary. The appellant and respondents 1, 3,5 and 7 therein were duly nominated candidates for the general seat in the said constituency, while respondents Nos.

7 ; that is to say, the person detained shall not be entitled to the disclosure of such facts as the authority making the order, considers against public interest to disclose. 14A with which we are directly concerned in the present appeal. 100(1)(d)(iv) respectively of the amended Act. It is not open to him now to change his plea with regard to his ownership, and the case must be decided only on the contention that the properties were private.

In our opinion, the Tribunal misdirected itself in looking into the sufficiency of proof led before the inquiring officer, as if it was sitting in appeal on the decision of the employers. There was substantial difference between non-compliance with s.