Dushyant Pandya
19 January 2011 at 21:45
Virgin lands, lying in isolating remote area in X state and same were allotted on lease basis by Government Authority for 30 year. Accordingly, lessees have developed the same by great efforts and investments.
Now, after almost 35 years, PIL was filed in the high court of some Y state stating that concern government authority had allotted at cheap rate and favored some parties. Petitioner till date neither joined lessees as respondent in petition nor invited them. In such circumstances, are lessees have any other way to protect their interest?
Should lessee approach any other authority under any law to protect their interest?
Please advice.
Mallik Karra
19 January 2011 at 20:28
>> say.. party "X" before the election say that they will not have any tie-up with party "Y" but later when they fall short of majority they tie up with "Y" what is the remedy available to public who voted for them based on their agenda.
We have anti-defection law to punish those politicians who cut across party line after winning on one party's ticket..
the interest of the political party is protected... but what about the general public who vote based on their agenda or promise and deviate later..
Shubhank Sanjeev
19 January 2011 at 18:03
Hi! I want to ask what is a reservation roster and what are its functions?
Anonymous
19 January 2011 at 15:21
Respected experts!!
Heard that Public Service Commission and others State Public Service Commission used some SCALING SYSTEM in competition examination conduct by them.
Could somebody explain me what is this scaling system is and how do they maintain this scaling system.
lissing perme
19 January 2011 at 14:46
"As reported by Nidhi Sharma in economictimes.com on 20 November 2010:
Apex court asks UPSC to divulge civil services selection under RTI - The Economic Times
Apex court asks UPSC to divulge civil services selection under RTI"
RESPECTED EXPERTS!!!
COULD ANYBODY GIVE IDEA HOW TO GET COPY OF ABOVE JUDGEMENT??? IF POSSIBLE PLIZ ATTACHED JUDGMENT COPY ITSELF!!
Anonymous
18 January 2011 at 15:23
Dear experts please answer my query,
A review petition filed in supreme court in-person by e-filing,
1.Will the petitioner-in-person will be allowed in chamber (where review heared) to make his point?
2. What is limitation for filing review in supreme court 30 days or 90 days?
Thanks in advance.
Pemmaraju Srinivasa Prabhu
18 January 2011 at 13:41
while not accepting a curative petition after dismissal review petition which act/ provision or rule of law / constitution of this country gave permission for not giving detail reasons
Anonymous
16 January 2011 at 10:41
Dear Advocates,
What is the procedure to get documents in vernacular officially tranlated.
Is there a need to file an affidavit along with the application for official translation.
Should the tranlation be done before the matter is numbered. Please reply in detail. Thanks.
Anonymous
14 January 2011 at 19:11
Dear advocates,
Is it mandatory to get the attestation on an affidavit for identification of the person filing the SLP.
SC registry has found a defect that Affidavit is not properly attested and Identified.
Please also let me know what is meant by complete listing proforma which is required for filing SLP.
I am urgently in need of help in fixing these defects. So timely reply will be appreciated.
Thanks.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Opinion of Experts requested on point of law
Dear Experts,
Please refer Apex court decision at http://yedhulaprakash1.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/Licence-for-acquisition-and-possession-of-firearms-and-ammunition-1557.asp
As per my understanding apex court has given primacy to general act/Exim Policy (1997-2002) instead of a specific act i.e. Arms Act 1959.
Whereas apex court, in the case of Suresh Nanada Vs C.B.I 2008 AIR 1414 held that: The Act (Passport Act) is a special Act relating to a matter of passport, whereas Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. authorizes the Court to impound document or thing produced before it. Where there is a special Act dealing with specific subject, resort should be had to that Act instead of general Act providing for the matter connected with the specific Act. As the Passports Act is a special act, the rule that ‘general provision should yield to the specific provision’ is to be applied.
In view of Suresh Nanada Vs C.B.I 2008 AIR 1414, in my opinion Exim Policy should have yielded to specific act of Parliament. No policy can be above an Act of Parliament i.e. Arms Act 1959 in this case. Please give your opinions.