The petitioners from the State of Andhra Pradesh have also prayed for identical relief claiming that the advertisement dated 28-5-2004 issued for filling up the vacancies in the regular cadre should be quashed and not processed any further and the petitioners instead should be absorbed against those vacancies. 751) ; United States v. Consequently, the post award proceedings cannot be considered by any means, to be a suit or other proceedings to enforce any rights arising under a contract.
The High Court has dealt with the above submissions and made following observations at page 33: Macomber  USSC Lawyers Chandigarh
119; (252 U. (Emphasis added) The above passages extracted from the case of Kamal Pushp Enterprises (supra), apart from explaining the principles laid down in Jagdish Chander case (supra), has thus held in categorical terms as to how Section 69 prohibition will have no application to the post award proceedings as they do not fall under the expression other proceedings of the said section.
The prohibition contained in Section 69 is in respect of instituting a proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract in any Court by an unregistered firm, and it had no application to the proceedings before an Arbitrator and that too when the reference to the Arbitrator was at the instance of the appellant itself. The food was required to be found Advocate in Chandigarh
the stomach which is negated by the medical report. of the annual admissions to non-Anglo-Indian students as a condition precedent of their receiving grant from the Government and the impugned order is unconstitutional as it 73 570 prevents the Anglo-Indian schools from performing their constitutional obligation and exposes them to the risk of forfeiting their constitutional right to the special grant.
(2)Barnes High School at Deolali and other Anglo-Indian School shave a right to admit non-Anglo-Indian students and students of Asiatic descent inasmuch as article 337 proviso 2 imposes an obligation on the Anglo-Indian Schools to make available at least 40 per cent. 521) Merchant's Loan (255 U. It is futile to speculate as to the effect these matters had on the minds - of the Judges in comparison with the effect of the other points (ii) PW-8 Kalpana Raut deposed that her husband took dinner and after dinner left out with the accused on 7.
The Award in this case cannot either rightly or legitimately said to be vitiated on account of the prohibition contained in Section 69 of the partnership Act, 1932 since the same has no application to proceedings before an Arbitrator. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit even Lawyers in Chandigarh
these submissions At the stage of enforcement of the award by passing a decree in terms thereof what is enforced is the award itself which crystallise the rights of parties under the Indian Contract Act and the general law to be paid for the work executed and not any right arising only from the objectionable contract.
after taking dinner but no food was found in the stomach and the medical report bellies that case. But deeper considerations are also at stake, namely, the elimination of favouritism and nepotism and corruption not that we suggest that that occurred here, but to permit what has occurred in this case would leave the door wide open to the very evils which the Legislature in its wisdom has endeavoured to avoid. If the said bar engrafted in Section 69 is absolute in its terms and is destructive of any and every right arising under the contract itself and not confined merely to enforcement of a right arising from a contract by an unregistered firm by instituting a suit or other proceedings in Court only, it would become a jurisdictional issue in respect of the Arbitrators power, authority and competency itself, undermining thereby the legal efficacy of the very award, and consequently furnish a ground by itself to challenge the award when it is sought to be made a rule of Court.
1996 victim left the house after 9:00 p. nThe procedure of tender was not open here because there was no notification and the furtive method adopted of setting a matter of this moment behind the backs of those interested and anxious to compete is unjustified. The next submission of amicus curiae is that the PW-8 Kalpana Raut has stated in her statement that on 7. 189 :  USSC 119; 64 L. Federal Commissioner of Taxation  HCA 2; (66 C. Apart from all else,thatinitself would Lawyers in Chandigarh
this case have resulted Advocates in Chandigarh
aloss to the State because, as we have said, the mere fact that the appellant has pursued this writ with such vigour shows that he would have bid higher.
All the more so when, as in this case, at all stages the respondent was only on the defence and has not itself instituted any proceedings to enforce any rights of the nature prohibited under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, before any Court as such. Stewart  USSC 144; (311 U. All that is part and parcel of the policy of the Legislature nTo decide against a party on matters which do not come within the issues on which the parties went to trial clearly amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record.