lawyers in Supreme Court of India, http://supremecourtindia.in/but-the-supreme-court-partially-invalidated-that-law/; The High Court fixed the compensation payable on the basis of Exh. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by– Bachawat, J. There can however no rigidity in fixing the life of machinery, since it differs from industry to industry. The principle that the Tribunal has to bear in mind is that the life of machinery is the period during which it is estimated to work with reasonable efficiency and not the period during which it has actually been operated, that is, till it becomes too deteriorated for use.
-One Mendappa died on October 29,1951 leaving him surviving his first wife Devamma the third defendant, Kem- pananjamma the plaintiff, a grandson Mahendra the first defendant and Dakshaiyaniamma the widow of his predeceased son Guruswami, the second defendant. In the present case the Tribunal had before it evidence showing that the industry required machinery of special precision and was therefore not comparable with machinery such as that law firms in Supreme Court India textile mills for which 25 years’ life was fixed.
It is not “out of date”, but the weight to be given to it alongside other material considerations, within the balance set by paragraph 14, remains a matter for the decision-maker in accordance with ordinary principles. Nor does it serve any purpose to do so, given that it is to be brought back into paragraph 14 as a specific policy under footnote 9. The Millowners’ Association, Bombay(1) and South India Millowners’ Association(2).
21 of the Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 (Andhra Pradesh Act No. The case of the said Kempananjamma was that on Mendappa’s death the family property passed to the first defendant, he being the sole surviving coparcener, subject to her rights and those of defendants 2′ and 3. It opined that the sale deeds produced were reliable and that they evidenced genuine transactions. The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was entitled to 18th- share.
“The question is whether there is a self-evident and pressing need for an unrestricted power to read letters between a prisoner and a solicitor and a power to stop such letters on the ground of prolixity and objectionability. There is nothing in the statute which enables the Secretary of State to create such a fiction, nor to distort what would otherwise be the ordinary consideration of the policies in the statutory development plan; nor is there anything in the NPPF which suggests an intention to do so.
He determined the same on the basis of the revenue 374 records for Fasli 1355 read with the evidence of the Naib Tehsildar, Jawal Prasad. He could not also show any instance where in a similar industry life of machinery was fixed for more than 15 years. The case of defendants 1 and 2, on the other hand. No-one would naturally describe a recently approved Green Belt policy best lawyers in Supreme Court India a local plan as “out of date”, merely because the housing policies in another part of the plan fail to meet the NPPF objectives.
was that the plaintiff as the step grandmother of the first defendant was not one of the female relatives entitled to any share in the property which vested on the death of Mendappa in the, 1st defendant as the sole surviving coparcener. Section 21 of the Act is in these terms: 32 of the the petitioners ask for an order declaring that s. The High Court enhanced the same to Rs. ” It would therefore appear that after the amendment of the Constitution in 1956 the State Legislatures were not competent to legislate top law firms in Supreme Court of India respect of taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers which took place top lawyers in Supreme Court of India the course of inter-State trade or commerce.
In all these writ petitions under Art. Aggrieved by the decision of the arbitrator, the claimants went up in appeal to the High Court of Allahabad under s. It is against that decision that the Collector of Varanasi has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court under Art. In some cases, it is true that Tribunals have fixed 25 years as the machinery’s average life. The arbitrator had fixed the compensation at Rs. Consequently, there can be no hard and, fast rule applicable to all sorts of machinery.
“Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, subject to the provisions of entry 92A of List I. 45 of 1961) is unconstitutional and ultra vires and a direction prohibiting the respondents from levying tax under S. 21 and to refund the tax already collected. The High Court differed from the arbitrator as to the value to be attached to the sale deeds produced. )(3) Since the Tribunal fixed the period of 15 years after considering the evidence and the nature of industry there is no reason why its determination need be interfered with.
Such an approach seems particularly inappropriate as applied to fundamental policies like those best advocates in Supreme Court of India relation to the Green Belt or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Counsel for the Union argued that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the life of the Dew machinery at 25 years as is usually done and not at 15 years. In suggesting the life of 25 years for this machinery Counsel for the Union did not give any specific reason except that 25 years of life has been fixed in some cases.