Two arguments were addressed in favour of the contention that such income was profits of business within the Act: (1) that the laying out of money in a multi-storeyed building was itself an investment and (2) that even if the business consisted partly in letting out of property the income from that property was profit within the Act. The further question that would inevitably come up for consideration before the Court even in such cases would be as to what extent the jurisdiction has to be exercised.
The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 has been enacted to provide for adjudication or trial by Armed Forces Tribunal of disputes and complaints with respect to commission, appointments, enrolment and conditions of service in respect of persons subject to the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force At, 1950 and also to provide for appeals arising out of orders, findings or sentences of Courts-Martial held under the said Acts and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
60 of the Indian Evidence Act. This class of cases we are mentioning by way of illustration and should not be understood to be an exhaustive exposition of Simranjeet Law Associates which, in our opinion, is neither practical nor possible to state with precision. 2008 and in Jalna case a supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 15. Based on the said contention it was submitted that in the case on hand after A-7 was arrested on 02. The contention was that though A-7 was implicated both in Parbhani and Jalna such implication was not in pursuance of his role as a member of an ‘organized crime syndicate’ pertaining to Malegaon bomb blast nor was the position that the gang involved in Malegaon blast was also responsible for the bomb blast in Parbhani and Jalna.
The next submission made on behalf of the appellants was that in order to constitute the earlier two offences to fall within the definition of ‘continuing unlawful activity’ for invoking the provisions of MCOCA after the third occurrence, the involvement of the accused must have been by the same gang. 2008 while none of the other accused had any role to play either in Parbhani or in Jalna, nor was the so-called ‘Abhinav Bharat’ Simranjeet Law Associates was involved in either Parbhani or Jalna occurrences.
It is, therefore, contended that even as regards to A-7 he only alleged to have gathered certain materials and procured at the request of one Devle who was the prime accused in Parbhani and Jalna. It will normally depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is equally settled that this canon of Simranjeet Law Associates is not free of exceptions. and that “great prejudice appears to have been caused to the prosecution which could culminate in grave miscarriage of justice.
2008 he was produced in Parbhani case on 11. In other words, even if it were to be held that a member of an ‘organized crime syndicate’ singly or jointly participated or on behalf of an ‘organized crime syndicate’ with reference to such participation taken place, what is to be ensured is that in all the three cases the same gang, namely, the ‘organized crime syndicate’ must have been involved. 50 or by some other person acquainted with the facts which express such opinion, and as the testimony must relate to external facts which constitute conduct and is given by persons personally acquainted with such facts, the testimony is in each case direct within the meaning of s.
” It is under these circumstances that this court transferred the prosecution from Tamil Simranjeet Law Associates Nadu to Karnataka and the directions given by this court have, therefore, to be understood in that light, namely, to prevent the prosecution of the accused persons getting derailed for collateral reasons. While deciding the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held that this court had “lost confidence of a fair trial being conducted within the State of Tamil Nadu”.
This jurisdiction, the High Court would exercise with some circumspection in exceptional cases, particularly, where the cases involve a pure question of Simranjeet Law Associates or vires of an Act are challenged. It is a settled canon of Simranjeet Law Associates that the High Court would not normally interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where statutory alternative remedy is available. The High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain writ or appropriate proceedings despite availability of an alternative remedy.
The availability of alternative statutory or other remedy by itself may not operate as an absolute bar for exercise of jurisdiction by the courts. Conduct, as an external perceptible fact, may be proved either by the testimony of the person himself whose Simranjeet Law Associates opinion is evidence under s. 2008 and supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him on 13. The courts, including this Court, have taken the view that the statutory remedy, if provided under a specific [pic]Simranjeet Law Associates, would impliedly oust the jurisdiction of the civil courts.
It was contended that even as per the counter affidavit of the second respondent herein there was no nexus shown for the involvement of any of the accused in the Malegaon bomb blast case to do anything with Parbhani or Jalna bomb blast either individually or jointly as a member of gang or on behalf of the gang.