best lawyers in Supreme Court India, http://supremecourtindia.in/supreme-court-law-on-common-property/. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi [1964] 4 S. (7) The notifications issued under s. on August 31, 1953 on acceptance by the landlord of the notice dated August, 1953. 5A(3), for the purposes of this section, to include a person who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation. 5 before the passing of the East Punjab Act No. 286(3) of the Constitution as it stood before the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act. Counsel for the appellant particularly based his argument on the second Explanation to s.
The licence is not a joint licence in favour of the Corporation and the Club. 52 of 1952, but they took effect in respect of such sales or purchases after September 11, 1956. 5A(3) that a person claiming an interest best law firms in Supreme Court of India compensation would be one of the persons whose interests are meant to be safeguarded. Subsection (1) provides: Notices recording disciplinary action proposed to be taken against an authorised firm will almost inevitably contain implicit or explicit criticisms of those responsible for the irregularities in question and possibly of other persons involved.
4,33,333 only as the licence was for a dual purpose, viz. ” Condition I of the licence prescribes that the Club could hold only 36 race meetings in a year out of which not more than 16 should be allotted to the Poona racecourse. there must be actual delivery of the possession. (6) The notification dated August 5, 1954 issued under S. Counsel urged that the Club was entitled to a deduction of Rs. G] Anand Nivas,(private) Ltd. 12(1) of the expression ‘tenent’ includes a statutory tenant, but the definition does not apply it’ there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.
The landlord’s refusal to agree to the withdrawal of the notice since he had already agreed to 21 lease the premises to another person from September 1, clearly showed’ that the offer to terminate the tenancy on August 31, 1953 was accepted by him and he had acted upon that offer. That contention is contrary to the plan terms of s. In fact, the order of reference also clearly showed that the Labour Court had full jurisdiction to consider as to whether the termination of the services of the workmen, was justified, and whether they were entitled to either reinstatement, or any other relief, in lieu thereof.
Therefore, the position was that the Tea Company, whose windingup had been ordered, was with the Official Liquidator. The tenants Was therefore determinated at 3. [25A-C: F] There was no force in the contention that in order to determine a tenancy under the Transfer of property Act it the instance of the tenant. These are referred to in the Act as “third parties”. These persons are heard under s. The ordinary meaning of “the person interested in land” is expanded by s.
sarajubala Dassi and Anr. 13(2) must mean a contractual tenant alone and not a statutory tenant. and the Tea Gardens of the company, were in the possession and management of tile Receiver, appointed in the mortgage suit. On the other hand, the Labour Court should have issued notices to the Receiver, or the Liquidator or to both, and, in their presence, should have considered the question as to whether the workmen were en- titled to claim relief.
5 inserted by East Punjab Act No. Statutory tenant has no interest or estste in the permises4 Occupied by him, and it cannot be said that the legislaturw, without making an express provision to that effect, intended to invest him with power to induct into the premises in his Occupation a person who would be entitled ‘to claim the right And interest of a contractual tenant. Section 393 contains provisions for protecting them against unfair prejudice.
L/S5SCI–10(a) 368 The scheme of the Act seems to be to first deal with persons who are interested in land. The licence is “granted to the licencees. to hold horse races on the said race courses. It was argued that for the first the burden would be on the lessor and for the second on the tenant. On the contrary, it follows from s. , for the premises as a race course and for permission to conduct race meetings on. [25H] (iii) Considered in the light of the scheme and object of the Act the expression ‘tenant’ in cl.
The decision of this Court in Ashok Leyland’s(1) case has no bearing on the question presented for determination top advocates in Supreme Court India this case. The application for it was made by the Committee on behalf of the Club and not by the Municipal Corporation. It would be strange to come to the conclusion that the Legislature is keen that a person claiming an interest in compensation should be heard before the land is acquired but is not interested top advocates in Supreme Court India him after the land is acquired.
106, may still be accepted by the party served with the notice; and if that party accepts and net,, upon it, the party serving the notice will be estopped from denying its validity. The reason is that in that case the deliveries of motor vehicles were inside the Madras State and the inter-State sales in question were not “Explanation Sales” falling within Art. On behalf of the appellant the argument was put forward that the Validation Act having lifted the ban on taxation of interState sales, the transactions of the respondent for the period from April 1, 1955 to September 5, 1955 were assessable to tax under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 operating on its own terms.
4 and 6 and other sections of the Act invalid. The State of Madras(1). If the licence was for a dual purpose prima facie the landlord would either apply separately or join the Club in the application. (8) Tax was effectively imposed on the sales or purchases of edible oil from September II, 1956 and not before. (ii) Even after negativing the claims of the workmen, as against the first respondent, the Labour Court should not have merely closed the proceedings, by holding that the reference had lapsed.
The licence shows that the application was for “horse racing in the race courses leased by them” at Mahalaxmi, Bombay and in the Cantonment at Poona. 5 was a top law firms in Supreme Court India authorising the imposition of a tax within the meaning of Art. 5 and the notifications issued under it did not take effect before September 11, 1956 in respect of sales or purchases of goods declared essential to the life of the community by Central Act No.
B shows that it was granted to the Committee of the respondent Club. 847 Krishna Prosad Bose v. In our opinion, the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant is not warranted. 2(h) of that Act and the decision of this Court top law firms in Supreme Court India Messrs Ashok Leyland Ltd.