The High Court held that the property inherited by respondent 10 was ‘not ancestral property qua the appellant, and so it allowed the appeal preferred by respondents 1 to 9 and dismissed the appellant’s suit. on which the list prescribed under clause (k) of Section 28 of the Act was available for sale or inspection. 43 of the Specific Relief Act, that would be no justification for their being inquiry – Read Homepage – impleaded in the suit where the issue please click the following Recommended Internet page (Read Homepage) is not one of inheritance but one of marriage between the appellant and the third respondent.
The order passed by the authority comes into effect when it is communicated. After remand the legal representatives of the deceased Ram Kala were brought on record and ultimately the original decree passed by the trial court “,as confirmed by the learned trial judge. (4)Assuming that Read A great deal more declaration in the suit would be binding upon respondents i and 2, which is doubtful having regard to the terms of S. On the contrary, it frustrates it and, therefore, the interpretation placed by the High Court on Paragraph 9 in juxtaposition with Paragraph 10 to treat the order has null and void is neither correct nor sound.
It is desirable that the authority shall pass an order within 30 days from the date of show cause. In other words, the starting point of limitation for filing the election petition for counting 10 days is the date” on This visit my webpage; Read Homepage, which the list prescribed under clause (k) of Section 28 of the Act was available for sale or inspection. ” Where a person not resident or not ordinarily resident in the taxable territories carries on business with a person resident in the taxable territories, and it appears to the Income-tax Officer that owing to the close connection between such persons the course of business is so arranged that the business done by the resident person with the person not resident or not ordinarily resident produces to the resident either DO profits or less than the ordinary profits which might be expected to arise in that business, the profits derived therefrom, or which may reasonably be deemed to have been derived therefrom, shall be chargeable to income-tax in the name of the resident person who shall be deemed to be, for all the purposes of this Act, the assessee in respect of such income tax.
The High Court took the view that the appeal had in fact been properly filed the District Court; but even so it did not ask respondents 1 to 9 to go back to the District Court, but condoned the delay made by the said respondents in the presentation of the appeal before itself and proceeded to deal with the appeal on the merits. In view of the fact that the point of law raised before the High Court was not free from doubt the High 1102 Court ordered that parties should bear their own costs throughout.
42(2), and he computed the same at Rs. An order passed in file in case of this nature would not be an effective order, for it is adverse to the interest of the dealer or agent and, therefore, paragraph 10 has to be given a purposive meaning. That is how respondents I to 9 took their appeal to the High Court of Punjab. It has already been noted that the claim for reimbursement of MAT for the period 2001-2005 was rejected by the Commission on the ground of limitation and after impugned order by APTEL reversing such order, that claim stands remitted to the Commission for passing a consequential order.
Regard being had to this aspect, it is to be seen whether the prescription of 30 days from the date of order as provided in Paragraph 10 would make the order null and void. Respondents I to 9 again challenged this decree by preferring an appeal to the District Judge at Karnal. There can be no trace of doubt that the order will take effect from the date when it is served. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, if it is held that the order would become a nullity, it really does not serve the purpose of the Control Order.
Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the view expressed by the High Court on this score also is absolutely incorrect and wholly unsustainable. 5,000 and so he ordered that the memorandum of appeal should be returned to respondents I to 9 to enable them to file an appeal before the High Court. The learned District Judge held that the value of the subject-matter of the suit was more than Rs. The court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered.
Unless such an interpretation is placed, the intention of the rule making authority and also the intention behind the object and reasons behind the Control Order and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 would be frustrated. The order, unless it is served, definitely neither the agent nor the dealer would suspend its activities or obey any order, for he has not been communicated. The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court under the first part of s.
” The Income-tax Officer, Bombay who dealt with the matter took the view that the appellant company had so arranged its business with the non-resident companies that it did not produce any profits to it, and explanation (Main Page) that was because it was those companies that really owned its share capital, and that therefore the profits which it could ordinarily have made but for their close financial connection were liable to be taxed under s.