Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.32 seconds)Section 48 in The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Sovachand Mulchand vs The Collector Of Central Excise And Land ... on 23 November, 1966
"No natural justice requires that there should be a kind of a formal cross-examination. Formal cross-examination is procedural justice. It is governed by rules of evidence ............... and not a part of natural justice but of legal and statutory justice." Again in the Bench decision in Sovachand Mulchand v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, my learned brother, on a conspectus of the cases, speaking for the Court observed :--
K. R. Deb vs Collector Of Central Excise, Shillong on 7 April, 1971
34. Strongly relying on this provision, it has been contended that remitting a case for further inquiry has been expressly provided in Regulation 48 only, in circumstances mentioned therein. In view of the express provision, there can be no implicit power of remit under the Regulations as has been contended and held in the judgment under appeal. It has been further contended referring to other service rules, that in Corporation's Staff Regulations, there is no power conferred on the disciplinary authority to reconsider the findings of the inquiry officer and to come to a finding different from that of the inquiry officer. Where it was intended to confer such power on the disciplinary authority, it was expressly provided under the relevant rules, such rules were the subject-matter of consideration in K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise, , relied on by the Corporation and the trial Court. In view of the provisions therein whereby the disciplinary authority was invested with the power to record its findings on each charge on consideration of the record of the inquiry by the inquiry officer, it was held that the disciplinary authority can direct further inquiry in respect of that matter when there was a defect in the inquiry though it cannot direct fresh inquiry. Accordingly, it was contended, the Zonal Manager as the disciplinary authority could not direct, in absence of specific provisions, a further inquiry which was intended obviously to cure the lacuna of the inquiry held by the inquiry officer.
Commissioner Of ... vs Sri Keshab Chandra Mandal on 9 May, 1950
In Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax West Bengal v. Keshab Chandra, , the Court referred to the common law doctrine that where a person authorises another to sign for him, the signature of that person so signing is the signature of the person authorising it but there may be cases in which a statute may require personal signature. The Court held that if a statute requires personal signature of a person, which includes a mark, the signature or mark must be that of the man himself. It was submitted that the Section 27 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not prohibit execution of such instrument through duly authorised agent acting in the principal's own name. The provision does not warrant signing the name of principal by the agent simpliciter but what it means is that the agent duly authorised can act in the name of the principal and such authority obviously has to be disclosed in some manner. It is not the case of the petitioner, as will appear from his written explanation of May 28, 1969, that he had the authority to encash the cheque on behalf of Jauhar or that such authority was ever disclosed to the Corporation so as to bind it thereby.