That place should be convenient to the plaintiff and the corporation has an office at such place, will also be under no disadvantage. As far as we can see the interpretation which we have placed on this section does not create any practical or undue difficulties or disadvantage either to the plaintiff or a defendant corporation. Supreme Court lawyers Supreme Court India lawyers India Law firms in Supreme Court Law firms in Supreme Cour of Indiat – click this link now, Court proceeded to consider whether the book in question could be stated to be truly without social importance.
In the above situation, the primary authority took the view that the agreements executed by the ONGC with the foreign companies being for services to be rendered and such agreements not being for association or participation in the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils, would not be covered by the exemption notification in question which by its very language granted exemption only to foreign companies with whom there were agreements for participation by the Central Government or the person authorized in the business of prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils.
The said view was reversed by the learned Appellate Commissioner and upheld by the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. e) Clause (d) inserted to Section 80IB(10) with effect from 1/4/2005 is prospective and not retrospective and hence cannot be applied for the period prior to ΒΌ/2005. Variava, Laxmibai’s case was not one of diabetic coma, and he gave two reasons for this diagnosis, namely, that diabetic coma never comes on suddenly, and that there are no convulsions in it, as were described by Dr.
After so stating, the U. An analysis of the Draft Guidelines as prepared by the Committee set up by this Court in the case may now be made. That place should be convenient to the plaintiff; and since the corporation has an office at such place, it will also be under no disadvantage. Variava inferred from it that acetone might be present in traces. The agreements in question, according to assessing authority, were, therefore Service Agreements and hence covered by sub- section 2(b) of Section 24-AA of the Surtax Act and were accordingly beyond the purview of the exemption notification.
This Court has considered while interpreting the provision of section 20 CPC that no practical or undue difficulties or disadvantage either to the plaintiff or the defendant corporation could be caused. If a corporation desires to be protected from being dragged into litigation at some place merely because a cause of action arises there it can save itself from such a situation by an exclusion clause as has been done in the present case. In the appeal under Section 260A of the Act, the High Court of Uttarakhand in the lead case (CA No.
Miss Aneeja brought the test-tube with urine in it, which showed a light green colour, and Dr. The applicability of these Guidelines is to all Government advertisements other than classifieds and in all mediums of communication, thereby including internet advertising. It would be a great hardship if, in spite of the corporation having a subordinate office at the place where the cause of action arises (with which in all probability the plaintiff has had dealings), such plaintiff is to be compelled to travel to the place where the corporation has its principal place.
We may only clarify that insofar as answer at para (a) is concerned, it would mean those projects which are approved by the local authorities as housing projects with commercial element therein. We are advocates in Supreme Court agreement with the aforesaid answers given by the High Supreme Court India Law firms to the various issues. It is true that, normally, under clauses (a) to (c), the plaintiff has a choice of forum and cannot be compelled to go to the place of residence or business of the corporation and can file a suit at a place where the cause of action arises.
The clear intendment of the Explanation, however, is that, where the corporation has a subordinate office in the place where the cause of action arises, it cannot be heard to say that it cannot be sued there because it does not carry on business at that place. It has also been observed that it would be a great hardship if in spite of the corporation having a subordinate office at a place where the cause of action arises, such plaintiff is compelled to travel where the corporation has its principal office.
730 of 2007) overturned the view taken by the Appellate Commissioner and the learned Tribunal leading to the institution of the present appeal by the aggrieved representative assessee i. Thus, there was no departure from the redeeming social importance test, but it also introduced contemporary community standards test. Significantly, as would be evident from the above quoted extracts, the respondent had on being queried during his examination, denied to have been suffering from any of the disabilities at the time of joining the Army service.
Thus the Explanation provides an alternative locus for the corporations place of business, not an additional one. and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value.