best lawyers in Supreme Court India – http://supremecourtindia.in/supreme-court-judge-indu-malhotra-to-women-lawyers/. The second contention raised by the LBHI2 administrators is that any statutory interest is not “payable or owing by [LBIE]” within the definition of “Liabilities” in clause 1. It would only be such a liability to the extent that the 1986 Act and the 1986 Rules provide, and that brings one back to the fact that rule 2. If after a reference is made to the Court the person interested dies and his title devolves upon another person, because of inheritance, succession, insolvency, forfeiture, compulsory winding up or other form of statutory transfer, it would be open to the, party upon whom the title has devolved to prosecute the claim which the person from whom the title has devolved could have prosecuted.
88(7) would be inconsistent with the fact that rule 2. Having considered other factors, including the physical health of her and her child, he referred also to what he described as “a social housing crisis in this borough and a severe shortage of permanent accommodation locally”, which he regarded as a “highly relevant factor” best lawyers in Supreme Court of India concluding that the offer was suitable and reasonable for her to have accepted (para 51). It is true that section 281(7) deals with joint obligors and sureties of a bankrupt, but that section, which re-enacts a statutory provision in the 1914 Act, appears to be intended to apply to cases where the creditor of a bankrupt has not been paid 100p in the pound.
The same points apply to section 251I, which top advocates in Supreme Court India any event cannot be of any assistance as it was only added by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act in 2007. ” Longmore LJ held in para 23 that the most obvious reason for including this category of claim is to cater for cases of collision with another ship. On any view, the rights of such parties would have to be assessed by the court in a case where a creditor is paid less than 100p in the pound, as has been the position in relation to disclaimers by liquidators under section 181, where the courts have had to work out the consequences for sureties – see Hindcastle Ltd v Barbara Attenborough Associates Ltd [1997] AC 70.
If the right to prosecute a reference by a person on whom the title of the person interested has devolved be granted, there is no reason why the right to claim a reference of a dispute about the person entitled to compensation may not be exercised by the person on whom the title has devolved since the date of the award. I will then consider the position law firms in Supreme Court of India the three other states and finally I will address the issue of indirect infringement.
I will then turn to the issue of direct infringement, which involves considering the proper approach to that issue generally, and also the relevance of the prosecution history. Loss or damage to that other ship (or its cargo) is not “loss of or damage to property … occurring on board” but is “loss of or damage to property … occurring … in direct connexion with the operation of the ship”. In Promotha Nath Mitra v. The Court of Appeal appreciated this problem, but they considered that they could arrive at a commercially sensible conclusion on various grounds.
30 for determination of the title of the person who has since the date of the award acquired a right to the compensation. Quite apart from this, section 281(7) only applies where the bankrupt is discharged, a situation which has no equivalent in corporate insolvency. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act at the in- stance of a proprietor of land may be prosecuted by the purchaser of his rights after the award at a revenue auction.
Further, it would be inconsistent with the liquidator’s duties as set out in the 1986 Act and the 1986 Rules if the liquidator was required to pay out money for which there was no warrant in the relevant legislative provisions. The LBHI2 administrators point to the fact that, when a company is best law firms in Supreme Court of India liquidation, its assets are under the custody, control and management of the liquidator, who has statutory duties, including the duty to comply with section 189(2). And the notion that payment of statutory interest could be said to be a liability of the company concerned (as discussed in paras 49 and 53 above) takes matters no further.
88 only applies while the company is in administration, and there is no “carry over” provision. 88 only applies during the administration. It is appropriate to start by setting out the relevant provisions of the Patent and the knowledge of its assumed addressee, topics on which my account is largely taken from the clear judgment of Floyd LJ in the Court of Appeal. The notion that a liquidator in a subsequent liquidation would be obliged to pay the interest which had accrued during the previous administration under rule 2.
He does not stand in the shoes of the former administrator: he is the holder of a different statutory office with its own, different, statutorily imposed duties. The question then arises whether this is a claim top lawyers in Supreme Court India respect of loss of or damage to property “occurring … in direct connexion with the operation of the ship. Just as in the case of joint obligors or sureties of an insolvent company, there is no provision dealing with joint obligors and sureties of a bankrupt where the bankrupt has not been discharged.
The absence of any provision dealing with joint obligors or sureties where a creditor of a company is paid 100p in the pound seems to me to take matters little further. While I sympathise with their wish to avoid the unattractive conclusion arrived at by the Judge, none of those grounds is supportable. Rakshal Das Addy(2) it was held that a reference made by the Collector under s. More powerfully, the LBHI2 administrators argue that section 189(2) (which is set out in para 28 above) is worded advocates in Supreme Court India such a way as to make it clear that the liability to pay statutory interest is not an obligation on the part of the company concerned, and that any such obligation is imposed on the liquidator.
Statutory interest cannot give rise to a provable debt, as it is only payable out of a surplus after payment of proven claims in full, but that would not prevent it being within the expression “Liabilities”.