तुम सुधि बन-बनकर बार-बार -भगवतीचरण वर्मा

naturally this circumstance couldn't guide the uncovered Counsel to sustain a competition that the report while in the existing circumstance was faulty. We take into consideration which the report on which the prosecution was launched satisfied the necessities of s. eleven on the Act.

Their hard do the job and efforts served us in producing a very good place in this aggressive industry. Our group features:

पतझड़ के पीले पत्तों ने -भगवतीचरण वर्मा

the business has sound backing of its sturdy infrastructure at its producing unit. The unit is perfectly Outfitted with all sorts of assets to correctly meet the increasing desire of our solutions like Industrial Acrylic Products, Sale selling price Tags and many others.

अश्वघोष · कल्हण · वररुचि · कालिदास · विद्यापति · बाणभट्ट · मम्मट · भर्तृहरि · भीमस्वामी · भट्टोजिदीक्षित · भवभूति · मंखक · जयदेव · भारवि · माघ · श्रीहर्ष · क्षेमेन्द्र · कुंतक · राजशेखर · शूद्रक · विशाखदत्त · भास · हरिषेण · अप्पय दीक्षित

They would all be issues of proof and s. 11 won't involve the report back to be or to comprise either the cost-sheet or even the proof in assistance of your charge, its operate staying just to pay for a foundation for enabling the Justice of the peace to take cognizance of the situation.

," and " controlled stockholders " were being included in the residuary category. The similar contention which the Controller acted outdoors his powers in differentiating involving " controlled stockholders " and " registered stockholders " and in correcting various maxima of charges which could be billed by the two categories of dealers, will not have earned major thought possibly.

, be assailed only on grounds urged in advance of these types of Courts. Moreover, when Among the many grounds So urged as In such cases is integrated a violation of Art. fourteen, the handicap is accentuated, due to the fact the material facts on which the classification could relaxation could not be correctly, investigated or evaluated on The idea from the affidavits submitted On this court docket with no watchful sifting from the facts which a consideration because of the large court docket would afford to pay for. If inside the appeal now in advance of us, Now we have departed from this rule, and permitted the appellants to urge the additional grounds it absolutely was due to circumstance that the prosecution was pending and realized Counsel submitted that he would seek out to maintain his contention 569 regarding the violation of elementary rights around the components by now on report.

There have been some prior background before the existing prosecution was initiated but it's ample for your purposes of this appeal to get started with the report to the Judicial Magistrate, Amathi, because of the officer incharge of your Police station, Sultanpur, dated twenty/08/1955. it had been headed ' Offence-part II B Iron andSteel Manage get, 1941' and set out the next information: ' Bhagwati Saran utilised to work like a Karinda within the organization of Balwanta Devi Sushila Devi and had all together been carrying out gross sales and purchases for the store, in addition to issued receipts below his signatures. Shrimati Sushila Devi would be the wife of accused Bhagwati Saran and she was the proprietor. Balwanta Devi has died. as a result she alone would be the proprietor. in the midst of investigation it was also discovered that Bhagwati Saran had occasionally bought some iron-bark; on behalf of this firm soon after acquiring cost greater than the control charge, which he experienced all alongside been receiving printed, and' had been getting Various other receipts checked fictitiously under the Handle Act from the Business office of the Supply Officer.

(3.)It will be observed that the sole two details in controversy before the significant court have been: (one) whether or not the report on the police officer dated twenty/08/1955, contained ' the info constituting the offence ' with which the appellants had been charged, as to satisfy the requirements of s. 11 in the Act, and (2) irrespective of whether el. 11-B from the Regulate purchase, violated the fundamental appropriate to hold on business enterprise assured by Art. 19(1)(g). while in the grounds of attract this court and from the statement of situation, having said that, the appellants have lifted several other grounds and possess also submitted a petition for leave to urge these extra grounds, We drive to really make it very clear that grounds further to Those people urged prior to the superior court docket would not be permitted for being raised just before this courtroom for a matter needless to say and that petitions for these function would not be granted preserve in Outstanding scenarios. IT should be found that in hearing and coping with these additional grounds the courtroom is handicapped in not acquiring Bhagati Saran the benefit of the opinions on the High courtroom about the details urged.

भगवतीचरण वर्मा उपदेशक नहीं हैं, न विचारक के आसन पर बैठने की आकांक्षा ही कभी उनके मन में उठी। वे जीवन भर सहजता के प्रति आस्थावान रहे, जो छायावादोत्तर हिन्दी साहित्य की एक प्रमुख विशेषता रही। एक के बाद एक 'वाद' को ठोक-बजाकर देखने के बाद ज्यों ही उन्हें विश्वास हुआ कि उसके साथ उनका सहज सम्बन्ध नहीं हो सकता, उसे छोड़कर गाते-झूमते, हँसते-हँसाते आगे बढ़े। अपने प्रति, अपने 'अहं' के प्रति उनका सहज अनुराग अक्षुण्ण बना रहा। अनेक टेढ़े-मेढ़े रास्तों से घुमाता हुआ उनका 'अहं' उन्हें अपने सहजधर्म और सहजधर्म की खोज में जाने कहाँ-कहाँ ले गया। उनका साहित्यिक जीवन कविता से भी और छायावादी कविता से आरम्भ हुआ, पर न तो वे छायावादी काव्यानुभूति के अशरीरी आधारों के प्रति आकर्षित हुए, न उसकी अतिशय मृदुलता को ही कभी अपना सके। इसी प्रकार अन्य 'वादों' में भी कभी पूरी तरह और चिरकाल के लिए अपने को बाँध नहीं पाये। अपने 'अहं' के प्रति इतने ईमानदार सदैव रहे कि ज़बरन बँधने की कोशिश नहीं की। किसी दूसरे की मान्यताओं को बिना स्वयं उन पर विश्वास किये अपनी मान्यताएँ नहीं समझा। कहीं से विचार या दर्शन उन्होंने उधार नहीं लिया। जो थे, उससे भिन्न देखने की चेष्टा कभी नहीं की। प्रमुख कृतियाँ

इलाहाबाद विश्वविद्यालय के पूर्व छात्र

This even further objection was referred to the division bench for decision. The purpose urged prior to the learned Judges of the division bench was that the power to repair costs vested from the metal Controller by cl. 11-B of the Manage purchase was unconstitutional, as violative of the right to hold on business enterprise assured by Art. 19(1) (g) from the Constitution. The realized Judges answered this position from the appellants and the situation thereafter arrived back again before the uncovered one choose for closing disposal in the reference from the Sessions Judge. The learned Counsel for that appellants once again manufactured a submission towards the uncovered Judge concerning the report of the law enforcement officer dated twenty/08/1955, not fulfilling the necessities of s. 11 on the Act and pressed ahead of him the perspective which discovered favour While using the uncovered classes Judge. In a more comprehensive judgment, the uncovered Judge all over again rejected this competition and dismissed the reference and directed the prosecution to carry on. It is this buy in the High courtroom. of Allahabad that's the subjectmatter of attractiveness now before us. on a certification granted by that court.