transfer which is evidenced by the conveyance executed between the parties on the 28th December, 1959 clearly shows that it was subject to two conditions; it had to receive the sanction of the Reserve Bank and the Vendee had made it clear that the staff whom the Vendee regarded as surplus had to be retrenched by the Vendor before the Vendee could take over the undertaking as an owner. Deveaux has been much limited, if not overruled, by subsequent cases and that ‘at the present time the courts of this country are entirely wedded to the doctrine that the corporators of a corporation are conclusively presumed to be citizens of the same State as the corporation’.
He is obviously denying the receipt of this . Whether he received the letter dated August 2, 1954, or not, admittedly he had received the cable given by her. Since these two conditions can be treated as conditions precedent to the transfer, there can be no question of the transfer of the undertaking having taken place before the date of retrenchment. Naturally she would tell that fact to her father and seek his advice in the Service Matter Advocates In Chandigarh High Court of- replying to her husband. I have already held that he must have received the letter dated August 2, 1954.
There is nothing wrong in her father helping her to send a suitable reply, so that the husband may not be offended. letter a,,; it establishes that she had not the animus to desert him. It is very difficult to believe Ms statement. We are therefore satisfied that the Senior Advocates Chandigarh High Court Chandigarh High Court Best Lawyer was right in coming to the conclusion that the Tribunal was in error Best Lawyers in High Court Chandigarh holding that “it was an authority charged with the duty of investigating the validity of votes for and against the petitioning and returned candidate or for a matter of that any other contesting candidate.
Kapoor’s construction of s. 97 otiose and ineffective or make the operation of s. There was no particular urgency for her to create evidence on that date against a possible action under the Bombay Act, even if it applied to her. To this letter no reply was sent by the appellant and he says in his evidence that he did not 393 receive the said letter. If the returned candidate has recriminated and has raised pleas in regard to the votes cast in favour of the alternative candidate or his votes wrongly rejected, then those pleas may have to be tried after a declaration has been made under s, 100 and the matter proceeds to be tried under s.
100(1)(d)(iii) and the latter part of the enquiry which is governed by s. At the time the letter was written the Act had not come into force and this letter could not have been an answer to a possible action the husband might take for restitution of conjugal rights. 97 inconsistent with the operation of S. Ordinarily in the case of married couples it is true that a wife would not write letters to her husband after consulting her father. 100 (1) (d) (iii) is accepted, it would either make s.
101(a) will have to be tried on a broader basis permitting the returned candidate to lead evidence Lawyers in High Court Chandigarh support of the pleas which he may have taken by way of recrimination under s. On February 24, 1955, he again gave a cable in the following terms — “Since your secret departure you not replying my telegrams letters myself shocked you wandering different countries leading reckless life spoiling my reputation your most disgraceful behaviour ruining my life. But the circumstances under which the respondent wrote letter were not ordinary ones.
The husband, according to the respondent, gave his consent, though reluctantly, for her to leave with her father to the Far East, but soon there-after gave two cables asking her to return immediately. ” This cable contains incorrect statements. This letter demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the wife did not desert her husband with the requisite animus, but, on the other hand, shows her willingness to go over to Bombay as soon as she regained her health.
The statements of Lord Reading and Lord Parker in the Daimler case, that the Supreme Court had laid down the principle that a court may look behind the corporate name to ascertain the character of the indivi- (1) [1828] USSC 23; (1809) 5 Cranch 61 : [1828] USSC 23; 3 L. ” It, however, appears that following its own earlier decision in Inayatullah Khan’s(1) case the Chandigarh High Court Lawyers Court was disposed to take the view that the enquiry under s.
As we have already indicated, this would be the position only if the returned candidate had recriminated; in the absence of recrimination, it would not be open to the Election Tribunal (1) 15 E. In other words, the first part of the enquiry in regard to the validity of the election of the returned candidate must be tried within the narrow limits prescribed by s. The second comment, namely, that this ‘letter was intended to be a shield against a possible action by the appellant, is devoid of merits.
Here, there was trouble between the husband and wife. 101(a) was wider and that in making its finding under the said provision, it was open to the Tribunal to scrutinise the votes and determine whether in fact, the petitioner or some other person had received a majority of the valid votes. , would a wife write a letter to her husband in consul- tation with her father?