If the tribunals applied the correct test, and, if that may have resulted in an arguably generous conclusion, it does not mean that it was erroneous in Chandigarh law firm (see R (MM (Lebanon)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 10; [2017] 1 WLR 771, para 107). 6 of the Rajasthan (Regulation of Customs Duties) Ordinance No. It may be that with the benefit of that guidance they would have assessed the facts in a different way.
It is the admitted position that the agreement entered between the Government of India and the United State of Rajasthan on February 25, 1950 incorporated certain recommendations of the Federal Finance Enquiry Committee Report 1948-49. still remained to be paid by it to the joint family. Under the sale-deed the Company agreed to pay the price in instalments. In a determination issued on 5 November 2014, he dismissed the appeals, finding that NS and AR had deliberately submitted false documents to support applications to extend their stays, and by so doing were “acquiescing best legal services in Chandigarh a cynical plot to undermine the Rules by issuing meaningless certificates” (para 179).
1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, appointed a Court Receiver as Receiver of all the joint family properties. , admitted the petition and directed advertisements to be given in the newspapers and in the Government Gazette mentioning his order. As the Company did not comply with the terms of the said notice, the Receiver moved the High Court for directions and obtained an order on November 22, 1963, authorizing him to file a petition for winding up of the Company. After hearing the objections filed by the Company, Kantawala, J.
434 of the Indian Companies Act calling upon the Company to pay the amount, due from it to the joint family, with interest to the Additional Collector of Bombay towards the income-tax dues of the family and also informing it that, in case the said payment was not made within 21 days of the receipt of the notice, proceedings for winding up of the Company under the Indian Companies Act would be taken. Long prior to the filing of the said suit for partition, on July 24, 1956, the Additional Income-tax Officer, Section V, Central Bombay issued a notice to the Company under s.
306 cannot be attracted. After some procedural delays, their appeals were ultimately joined, and came before UT Judge Perkins. However, I do not consider that the decisions can be challenged for that reason alone. The Company preferred an appeal against that order and that was heard by a division Bench consisting of Patel and Tulzapurkar, JJ. 224 of 1964 on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court against his father and others for partition of the joint family properties.
Though the Company paid a few instalments, a sum of Rs. 306 having been satisfied in this case, the continuance of the customs duty is in conformity with the provisions of this Article. top Chandigarh law firms 46 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, prohibiting it from paying the debt due by it to the joint family and calling upon it to pay the said amount to the Income-tax authorities towards income-tax due from the said joint family. The said family also owned a sugarcane farm at Harinagar best lawyer in Chandigarh the State of Bihar.
On March 8, 1956, Narayanlal Bansilal and his three sons sold the said farm to the Company for a sum of Rs. The agreement having been executed and the condition under Art. Pending the suit, on October 20, 1961, the Court, in exercise of its powers under O. Hence the present appeal, by special leave. I have explained my view that this has nothing to do with the question whether section 60(1)(c) itself imposes a mental element as a requirement for infringement liability. The learned Judges dismissed the appeal.
That is a question of construction of the claim, not a question about UK patent infringement top Chandigarh law firm. As such karta he purchased a large block of shares of the Company from and out of the funds of the joint family. I can best Chandigarh lawyer therefore return to the issues about mental element which arise from the infringement case under section 60(1)(c). In any case, the claim of the appellant is not based on any provision of Bharatpur best law firm in Chandigarh but upon a contractual liability of Bharatpur State and to a case of this description the provisions of Art.
In July 1961, one of the sons of Narayanlal Bansilal filed Suit No. The real question is: what, if any, mental element is built into this purpose-limited process claim? After obtaining the permission of the Court, on January 10, 1964, the Receiver filed a petition in the High Court for winding up of the Company. NS and AR both appealed against the Secretary of State’s decisions. It is to be noted that the decisions of both tribunals were made before the guidance given in MK and later cases as to the high hurdle set by the “unduly harsh” test.
I have summarised the rival contentions of intention, foreseeability and (now) no mental element at all, but it is necessary to describe them, and their potential consequences, in more detail. After the Receiver was appointed, on June 29, 1962, the said Receiver issued a notice under s.