best lawyers in Supreme Court of India http://supremecourtindia.in/according-to-the-supreme-court-rules/. 21 and to refund the tax already collected. advocates in Supreme Court of India this case, the learned Subordinate Judge, Seventh Court, Alipore who was directed by the remand order of the Calcutta High Court to take fresh evidence, if necessary, was not called upon by any of the parties to hear or record fresh evidence. the notional normal depreciation was deducted while the rehabilitation requirement. Reliance was also placed on, section 3(i) which provides that no horse’-race shall be held on a race-course for which there is no licence for horse-racing top advocates in Supreme Court India force.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by– Bachawat, J. There is no provision in the Act which Mr. He was doing so, as he said, against the background of serious shortage of housing and overwhelming demand from other applicants, many no doubt equally deserving. It is manifest that since it is the tenant who would hold the race-meetings the fees payable for the licence is his burden 534 and not that of the lessor. However, it does not necessarily follow from this that the Rule cannot be extended to administrations.
The licence is clearly permission to run race meetings on the two race-courses and not an instrument licensing the premises as a race-course. however, contended that the’ scheme of the Bombay Race-Courses Licensing Act, III of 1912 is to license the premises and then to licence the person who runs races on such premises. But the charging section is section 4 under which the owner, the lessee or the occupier of a racecourse can apply for a licence for horse racing on a race-course.
Such a person can be either the owner, the lessee or the occupier of such a racecourse. Ramamurti’s contention that the Tribunal in calculating the rehabilitation requirement for the bonus years was wrong in taking only the notional normal depreciation and not the statutory depreciation including development rebate permissible under the Income- tax Act. The ground need not be specified in the plaint, but nevertheless it had to be established in the suit. He relied strongly on the long title of the.
We cannot also agree with Mr. Act which states that it was an Act to provide for the licensing of race-courses in the State of Bombay. 45 of 1961) is unconstitutional and ultra vires and a direction prohibiting the respondents from levying tax under S. A liquidator is statutorily authorised to make calls on a contributory, whereas an administrator is not, and the Rule has only ever been applied in liquidations. It was when the Court calculated the Income- tax payable by the Company that it deducted the statutory depreciation from the gross profits (see also Bengal Kagazkal Mazdoor Union & Ors.
He clearly understood the potential importance of considering her mental state against the background of her imprisonment top advocates in Supreme Court India Iran. Viewed as a whole, it reads as a conscientious attempt by a hard-pressed housing officer to cover every conceivable issue raised in the case. The length and detail of the decision-letter show that the writer was fully aware of this responsibility. Ibrahim was aware of the order passed by the President.
This is not to diminish the importance of the responsibility given to housing authorities and their officers by the 1996 Act, reinforced top law firms in Supreme Court of India the case of disability by the Equality Act 2010. In Associated Cement Co. 994, top advocates in Supreme Court of India the Chart prepared by this Court only. Section 21 of the Act is in these terms: 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 (Andhra Pradesh Act No. 3 or to prove the existence thereof at the hearing of the suit, he had to establish the existence of such a ground when the suit was heard.
It is impossible to raise an inference that because the order of the President was gazetted and certain members of the syndicate and senate were aware of tile order of the President, knowledge must also be attributed to the Chancellor. irrelevant in considering whether the Chancellor Mr. 32 of the the petitioners ask for an order declaring that s. The licence for horse racing and the obligation to obtain it and to pay the fee therefor is on the person who conducts the business of running the race-course for horseracing.
Titagarh Paper Mills Co. His description of the central issue (para 39) has not been criticised. In all these writ petitions under Art. He however directed his attention to the (1) [1960]3 S. What section 3 does is to prohibit horse racing on a racecourse unless a licence for horse racing has been obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Act. top lawyers in Supreme Court of India my view, the appeal on this issue well illustrates the relevance of Lord Neuberger’s warning in Holmes-Moorhouse (para 7 above) against over-zealous linguistic analysis.
Neither David Richards J nor the Court of Appeal thought it right so to extend it, but that was, in each case, after having concluded that the prospective section 150 liability of a contributory could be set off against its proved claim in the administration, a conclusion with which, as explained above, I disagree.