NRI Legal Services 815, FF, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh 160016 – NRI Legal Services – An Overview
No other possible basis of benefit was canvassed. An acceptance that they had obtained a benefit on that account inevitably involved a mistake of law. It was argued that the refusal to allow any payment for the extensive preparatory work that would inevitably be required made it impossible for him to retain counsel. At para 47 of his judgment he said: This amounted to a denial of nrilegalservices.me access to justice. There is also evidence to show that the temple has all along been primarily http://nrilegalservices.me maintained from the contributions made by the devotees belonging to the Vallabha School.
This is that nrilegalservices the only nrilegalservices.me basis on which the appellants were said to have obtained a benefit was that they had evaded the duty and VAT payable. This argument misses the essential point in my view. She can only pay the same from temple funds. (2) (ii) the market value of the portion of the site on which the non- residential building is constructed; and (iii) such allowances http://nrilegalservices.me not exceeding 25% of the cost of construction as may be made for locality, features of architectural interest, accessibility to market, nearness of a railway station and other amenities ‚as may be prescribed.
„Especially to avoid social hardship, it is appropriate, for beneficiaries of refugee or subsidiary protection status, to provide without discrimination in the context of social assistance the adequate social welfare and means of subsistence. Desai, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs he indicated that the parties may be left to bear their own costs in this appeal. The decision of Treacy J Mr Brownlee applied for judicial review of the department’s decision not to allow any modification of the standard fees to be paid for the sentencing hearing in his case.
We regret this result and only hope that some way will be found out of the difficulty created by the-foolish action of the Commissioner in leaving the field clear for the compromise of the suit. The preamble to Council Directive 2004/83/EC (the Qualification Directive) emphasises that, in contrast to the Reception Directive (which identifies minimum standards), the key objective is to ensure that those granted refugee status are not discriminated against in terms of access to welfare support, accommodation etc.
Where, therefore, it can be shown that the conditions in which an asylum seeker will be required to live if returned under Dublin II are such that there is a real risk that he will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, his removal to that state is forbidden. Such a certificate can be issued if „on any legitimate view“ the claimant’s assertion that his enforced return would constitute a violation of his human rights would fail on appeal: R (Yogathas) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] 1 AC 920, by Lord Hope at para 34; R (L) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 25; [2003] 1 WLR 1230 and ZT (Kosovo) [2009] 1 WLR 348.
The suit temple appears to be an important temple attracting a large number of devotees. (2) [1967] INSC 228; [1968] 1 S.
