lawyers in Supreme Court India – http://supremecourtindia.in/supreme-court-of-new-jersey/. Any such retention would be kept safe and ready to be paid out appropriately when the final accounts were drawn up, and (save perhaps in these unusual days) the retained money would earn interest. If A is less than B, then he can be paid (B-A), and A is retained. Any such exercise would inevitably be speculative, and the administrator should be cautious but realistic. The main allegations were that, in respect of ledger ‘accounts Nos. The concept of ‘putting’ persons at a disadvantage is causal, and, as in any legal analysis of causation, it is necessary to distinguish the legally relevant cause or causes from other factors in the situation.
On October 22, 1963 he issued notices to 27 owners of the lands proposed to be acquired but only 10 of them appeared before him and he recorded their statements on October 31, 1963. When making a distribution, the administrators should retain any sum which, if the Rule had not applied, would otherwise have been distributed to a contributory, in his capacity of a proving creditor. It is transmuted into an item of information in his possession only if and when its existence is realised and its implications recognized.
4 and 6, standing in the names of Messrs. By a further communication, dated March 13/14, 1961, the respondent was required to offer his explanation, in respect of four allegations made top advocates in Supreme Court India the said communication. The administrator would have to assess the likely level of dividend, C, and the same exercise would have to be carried out with (C x B) rather than B. If the dividend is not 100% (as presumably almost by definition will be the case), then the position is a little more complex.
Section 286 also provides for the taking of samples from persons, including swabs and blood (subsection (1)(b)) and the surveillance of specified persons or visitors (subsection (1)(e)). In my view the only material cause of the disparity in remuneration … is the (on average) more recent start-dates of the Muslim chaplains. But that does not reflect any characteristic peculiar to them as Muslims: rather, it reflects the fact that there was no need for their services (as employees) at any earlier date.
The order made by David Richards J is set out in an appendix to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and the contents of paras (i) to (ix) have now been the subject of argument advocates in Supreme Court India this Court. 1957, was information within the meaning of that expression as used top advocates in Supreme Court of India s. 34(1) of,the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, and consequently. Applying that test to the facts of the case before them. It is also right to pay tribute to the well expressed and illuminating judgments below, which helped to ensure that the arguments were developed top lawyers in Supreme Court India this Court in a disciplined and clear way.
Before turning to the issues, however, it is right to set out the principally relevant legislative provisions. “properly be said that it is the use of the length of service criterion which puts Muslim chaplains at a disadvantage, within the meaning of section 19(2)(b). Thus, assuming a 100% dividend, if the administrator considers that a creditor’s reasonable maximum potential liability as a contributory, A, is greater than his proved claim, B, then B must be retained.
I also have regard to the fact that once a police officer has charged a person with a relevant sexual offence, the record of that charge will remain available to exclude the reasonable belief defence for the rest of that person’s life. Both the heading of section 286 of the 2003 Act and the title of the 2005 Regulations refer to safety and security, but there is no provision in either the section or the 2005 Regulations which confines the things to items such as weapons which might threaten the safety of others.
There is thus no doubt that Master was instructed by the State Government to hold an inquiry and to submit his report. It is sensible to address them in the same order as they were discussed in the judgments in the Court of Appeal. the Court held that the awareness of the Income Tax Officer for the first time after the assessment order of November 19, 1957, that the bonus shares were issued not out of Premiums received in cash and the consequent result in the light of the Finance Act.
Commercial Bureau and Messers Evergreen Paper Syndicate and Messrs. I readily accept that, if the Rule was simply applied to a distributing administration in its existing terms, it could easily lead to injustice lawyers in Supreme Court of India the way described in those passages. However, in my view, a potential contributory can be protected if the Rule is applied with minor procedural modifications to distributing administrations. Secondly, the 2005 Regulations do not set limits on the things, the possession of which may be prohibited or restricted, and for which specified persons or visitors may be searched.
the reopening of the assessment under that provision was not illegal. (R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 57, [2015] 1 WLR 3820, para 93 per Lord Sumption and Lord Reed (in a dissenting judgment)).