best advocates in Supreme Court India http://supremecourtindia.in/u-s-supreme-court-for-discussion/. However, section 189(2) was not amended, quite possibly because it is more difficult to amend primary, than secondary, legislation. But the respondent raises two main arguments. 31 We are unable to agree with the contention raised by counsel for the respondent. It seems likely that there was an oversight on the part of those responsible for revising the 1986 Act and the 1986 Rules when they were amended to provide for a distributing administration by the 2002 Act and the 2003 Amendment Rules.
13 contemplates a case in which a contractual tenant has sub-let the premises. They submitted their quarterly returns upto 30th April 1952. In Mr Naeem’s case, the reason why the pay scale puts Muslim chaplains at a disadvantage is known: essentially it depends upon length of service and they have, on average, shorter lengths of service than Christian chaplains. 88(7) (which requires any surplus remaining after payment of the debts proved to be applied in paying statutory interest “before being applied for any purpose”) – see paras 20 and 27 above.
12(1) applies only to a case in which the tenant has an interest in the estate which he could sub-let. “(3)(a) Nothing in sub-sections (1) and (2)- (i) shall apply to any proceeding (including any notice issued) under section 11, or 22A or 22B, and (ii) notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of a court or Tribunal, shall be deemed ever to have been applicable to such proceeding or notice. As Lord Wilson has pointed out, the Secretary of State’s duty was to provide them “to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements” but the critical question was how were those reasonable requirements to be defined.
A more difficult question is whether taking such a course would involve extending the contributory rule in a way which is inconsistent with the provisions or principles of the current legislation. Precisely those reasons justify the extension of a slightly modified version of the contributory rule to administrations. In 1958, fresh notices were issued for L/P(N) 7SCI-(3)(a) 662 the calendar years1952 to 1955 and the appellants raised the objection, for the first time, that their assessment year was not the calendar year, but 1st November to 31st October.
Yet if the argument is correct, the contributory rule could not apply best lawyers in Supreme Court India a liquidation, as rule 4. 181 and section 189(2) are expressed in effectively identical terms to rules 2. 93 was amended appropriately by the 2005 Amendment Rules and, even more in point, rule 2. There is, at least at first sight, a strong argument that such an extension would be inconsistent with rule 2. Since no returns were submitted thereafter, on 13th September 1955, the assessing authority issued a notice with respect to the period 1st January 1953 to 31st December 1953 calling upon them to show cause why action should not be taken against them under s.
The appellants repeatedly took time for submitting their explanation. The appellants were registered dealers. The answer to this argument is to be found in the fact that the contributory rule undoubtedly applies in a liquidation – see per Lord Walker best advocates in Supreme Court India Kaupthing (No 2) [2012] 1 AC 804, para 20 and per Briggs LJ top lawyers in Supreme Court India this case, [2016] Ch 50, para 243. If it be held that the expression ‘tenant’ in s. A similar notice was issued on 27th October 1955 for the period 1st January 1954 to 31st December 1954, and on 7th July 1956, for the period 1st January 1955 to 31st December 1955.
The true analysis is that the contributory rule is an aspect of a “general equitable principle” which operates as a qualification to the 1986 Rules regarding distributions in liquidations, and is needed to ensure compliance with the overall purpose of those rules (as discussed in McPherson’s law firms in Supreme Court of India of Company Liquidation, 3rd ed (2013), paras 10. Their assessment year was from 1st November to 31st October. 69 (which requires debts to be paid in full unless the assets are insufficient to meet them), and rule 2.
Two amendments were subsequently made to the 1986 Rules, explained respectively in paras 115 and 27 above: rule 4. The principally relevant parts of section 3 of the 2006 Act, as originally enacted, are set out in para 11 of Lord Wilson’s judgment and I need not repeat them here. The duty is to provide the listed services “throughout England”. 88 was appropriately amended by the same 2005 Amendment Rules. When, therefore, one comes to section 3 of the Act, the Secretary of State’s duty to provide the services listed there is impelled, at least in part, by considerations other than improving the health of the people of England generally.
A statutory tenant by parting with possession forfiets the protection of the Act, and unless the statute expressly provides or clearly implies otherwise, the person inducted by cannot claim the protection of the Act. In our view, since–a statutory tenant has merely a personal right_ to protect his possession, and has no estate or interest in the premises occupied by him, he cannot convey an estate or interest which he does not possess.