lawyers in Supreme Court of India – http://supremecourtindia.in/indias-supreme-court-to-issue-final-ruling-on-rbi-cryptocurrency-ban-in-september/; (2) any person who enters into any forward contract in contravention of the provisions contained best lawyers in Supreme Court India subsection (4) ‘of section 15 shall on conviction be punishable with fine. She concluded that the District Judge had erred in best law firms in Supreme Court of India/principle in asking himself whether the deceased had acted reasonably rather than whether there had been a failure to make reasonable provision, and that he should have held that there was no lack of reasonable provision.
All those modes of proof will be equally, irrefutable. Before the hearing he produced, a certificate from the. Here the right of appeal has been made subservient to the payment of the admitted tax. Sales-tax Officer that the tax had, been paid. Where the consent or authority of the other person is secured but not in writing, the member has to secure a written confirmation ‘of such consent or authority within three days from the date of such contract.
Could he not obtain from the bank the discharged cheque by which the amount of tax was deposited by him and produce it as the discharged counterfoil of payment. The prohibition is removed only if two conditions exist-(i) that the note must disclose that the purchase or sale is on the account of the member of the recognised association; and (ii) consent or authority of the other person has been secured independently of the disclosure in the note. The charitable beneficiaries, who had not appealed thus far, then cross appealed challenging the conclusion that there had been any failure of reasonable financial provision.
Her claim has varied over time, but both before the District Judge and on appeal from him she sought capital provision amounting to half or more of the estate. He awarded her £50,000. If the admitted tax is paid and there is proof available that it has been so paid, there exists no reason to create a second impediment in the way of the appeal. He offered an explanation to, the effect that he was led to believe in the credit-worthiness of the individuals, because of their long association with the Bank and also because of the fact that, on prior occassions, overdrafts 253 had been granted to them, in excess of permissible limits.
of the authorities the said irregularities, that must have come to his knowledge, and that the pass -book of ledger No. Gokul Chand Radharam, respectively, overdrafts had been allowed, by the respondent, from time to time, without obtaining the sanction of the authorities competent to allow overdrafts. 15 imposes a prohibition against the entry into a contract on his own account by a member of the association with any person who is not a member of that association, unless the member has secured the consent of such other person and discloses in the note, memorandum or agreement of $ale or purchase that he has bought or sold the goods, as the case may be, on his own account.
He also admitted that it was a blunder on his part and that he should not have done so. It is to be remembered that all rules of procedure are intended to advance justice and not to defeat it. The other allegations were to the effect that the respondent, who was charged with the duty of supervising both these ledgers. ” It is common ground that the Central Government has issued a notification declaring s. The appellants entered into the contract with the respondents-who are not members of the association-for buying jute bags on their own account.
District Judge Million found that the deceased’s will did not make reasonable provision for Mrs Ilott. 15(1) of the Act as applicable to forward contracts in jute and jute goods. Suppose for instance that the I challan was lost and the time for the filing of the appeal was expiring, could or could not the person concerned say that he had the certificate but had lost it and that he would produce a copy of the challan from the Treasury or obtain a certificate from the 513 Treasury Officer.
The respondent sent a reply, dated March 17, 1961, wherein he has admitted that, in the course of discharge of his routine duties and responsibilities, in good faith and honestly, he had granted overdrafts to the parties referred to, by the Bank, temporarily, best law firms in Supreme Court India excess of their credits or limits, without reference to the higher authorities. The appeal and cross appeal came on before Eleanor King J (as she then was) with a tight timetable. He also offered explanation, on the minor alle- gations, to the effect that it was the duty of the ledger- keeper to give the figures regarding the overdrafts and that he had not done any mis-reporting to the higher authorities.
did not bring to the notice. Mrs Ilott was dissatisfied with the amount and appealed. She was invited to deal first with the cross appeal. He again admitted that this act of permitting the parties concerned to overdraw, best advocates in Supreme Court India excess of their limits, without reference to the sanctioning authorities, amounted to negligence, but his conduct was perfectly bona fide and honest. In the -present case the,, assessee had in his petition of appeal ‘stated that the amount of tax had been paid and had fortified the ‘Statement by an affidavit.
No doubt, rule makes it easy for the assessee to bring satisfactory proof in an uncontestable manner, but the provision of the rule is not to the exclusion of other satisfactory modes of proof. The cross appeal having thus been allowed, Mrs Ilott’s appeal on quantum did not arise.