In the opinion of the High Court, all those writ petitions which pertained to notifications issued prior to the year 2000 and the writ petitions were filed in the year 2011, these writ petitions deserved to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. was open to them, and thirdly, because the reference was made after an unreasonable length of time and in a vague manner. Insofar as three letters written by the MoPNG, namely, letters dated 17-06-2005, 11-04-2007 and 28-04-2008 are concerned wherein this Ministry admitted that there was an unintentional lapse and omission in not incorporating the provision of admissible deduction under Section 42 of the Act, the High Court has brushed aside these communications as inter-ministerial correspondence.

Therefore, the situation contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act also does not get attracted. Aggravating circumstances (1) The offences relating to the commission of heinous crimes like murder, rape, armed dacoity, kidnapping, etc. by the accused with a prior record of conviction for capital felony or offences committed by the person having a substantial history of serious assaults and criminal convictions. The High Court also found that many writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisitions in respect of which notifications were issued much earlier, were totally stale and suffered from laches and delays.

firstly, on account of the circumstances in which that order came to be made after an illegal and unjustified sit-down strike, secondly, because the workmen in their turn did not avail themselves of the remedy under s. The High Court further pointed out that there was no letter or correspondence written by the appellant from 1995 onwards stating that non- inclusion of Section 42 benefit was due to oversight. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended (1) that on the admitted facts, the ingredients of s.

It is worthy of note here that the Union itself gave notice to the Manager of the factory with regard to the intended strike in the limestone quarry. This was followed by reminder dated 19. We shall come to its admissibility separately. 8,85,14,000/- for development of the acquired land, an amount of Rs. It is also stated that out of the total cost of Rs. 2007, the appellant required the Union of India, through the MoPNG and the MoF, to issue an appropriate clarification/amendment with respect to the two PSCs executed with the appellant, taking a stance that it was always the intention of the Union of India, at all stages, to give the benefits of Section 42 Deductions of the Income Tax Act, read with Article 16 of the MPSC, to all the entities who had entered into PSCs with it, including the appellant with the plea that the non-inclusion of this provision in the two PSCs signed with the appellant was a clerical error/oversight.

The geographical proximity of the limestone quarry was never in dispute. In the written submissions of the GDA, it is stated that subsequent to the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act in the month of December, 2004, award has been made and out of the 400 land owners more than 370 have already received compensation. 2008 again requesting the Union of India, through the MoPNG and the MoF, to issue an appropriate clarification/amendment with respect o the two PSCs executed with the appellant.

5(3) of the Act, had not been established, (2) that when the charge in respect of specific instances of corruption, has not been proved, as found by the courts below, it should have been held that the contrary of the presumption contemplated by s. It was adjacent to the factory, being situate within a radius of about a mile. There were also other documents to show that the transfer of members of the staff from the quarry to the factory and vice versa was made by Mr.

Provided that in a case where the provisions of this clause do not apply, the deduction to be allowed for expenditure incurred remaining unallowed shall be arrived at by subtracting the proceeds of transfer (so far as they consist of capital sums) from the expenditure remaining unallowed. We are therefore of opinion that the Appellate Tribunal should not have ordered the reinstatement of even the fifteen workmen in the circumstances as their case was exactly the same as the case of the hundred workmen, except in the matter of the withdrawal of the provident fund.

Likewise, insofar as confessional statement (Mark A) allegedly given by Jaibir is concerned, that is again in another FIR. 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act did not create a new offence but only laid down a rule of evidence that empowered the Court to presume the guilt of the accused in certain circumstances, contrary to the well- known principle of criminal Law firms in Supreme Court that the burden of proof was always on the prosecution and never shifted on to the accused.

In the meanwhile, on 24. Even if the scooter was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement, it would have made the fact of recovery of scooter only, as admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and it would not make the so-called confessional statements of the appellants admissible which cannot be held as proved against them. Dongray according to the exigencies of service.