148 crores and that the first respondent was willing to make a higher offer would only go to show visit our website source (Visit Homepage) that all the allegations made in the recall application are tailor made to suit the convenience of the respondent in view of the increase in the FSI and the consequential escalation of the Full Write-up (Going In this article) price of the property in question. The High Court varied the decree to this extent and the plaintiffs have come up in appeal to this Court by certificate of the High Court of Bombay.
No person can seek to collect the duty from both ends. In other words, he cannot collect the duty from his purchaser at one end and also collect the same duty from the State on the ground that it has been collected from him contrary to law. nIts course of dealing is thus described in the judgment under appeal:- ” The intending purchaser has to apply for a permit to the Iron and Steel Controller at Calcutta, who forwards the requisition to the Chief Sales Officer of the assessee working in Calcutta.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 22, 1950, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. It is further submitted that the conduct of the respondent in writing to the official liquidator on 9. 80 of 1946 from original decree, arising out of the judgment and decree dated October 19, 1945, of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwar, in Special Suit No. 807, 1322 and that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the Chaukidari Chakaran lands as being part of the Patni.
” Similarly in Meenakshi Naidu v. Nor do we agree with them that the earlier clause providing for the sale of the Chaukidari Chakaran lands in default of the payment of jama, should be construed so as not to override the later clauses. concerned to alter the terms of the original patni if they chose to do so; and what we have to see is whether that was done. No one can speak of the people being unjustly enriched. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is Going Listed here (Visit Homepage) a just and salutary doctrine.
State represents the people of the country. The ” works order ” mentions the complete specification of Get the facts goods required The Chief Sales Officer thereafter makes a “works order” and for. 5 pointed out the difference where only the father’s interest was intended to pass: ” It is a question of fact in each case, and in this case their Lordships think that the transactions of the 4th and 5th of January, 1875, and the description of the property in the sale certificate, are conclusive to shew that the entire corpus of the estate was sold.
-For the purposes of this clause,- (a) gross amount charged for the works contract shall not include value added tax or sales tax, as the case may be, paid or payable, if any, on transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of the said works contract; In order to do that, we have to examine the terms of the pattah by which the Chaukidari Chakaran lands were granted to Syamlal Chatterjee. In the result, we are unable to hold that the two clauses on which the learned Judges base their conclusion are really inconsistent with the earlier clauses which support the view that the grant under Exhibit B is of a distinct Patni.
1 was made 1388 liable at the instance of the liquidator of the Dharwar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. The power of the Court is not meant to be exercised for unjustly enriching a person. Jakati, had been receiving a yearly remuneration from the Bank and the properties were sold in payment of a debt binding on the family and therefore the sale in execution of the payment order could not be challenged as the sons were under sneak a peek at this website pious obligation under the Hindu law to discharge the debts of their father; , for misfeasance because he acted negligently in the discharge of his duties as managing director of the Bank; that the debt was binding on the family as defendant No.
155 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, it held that the whole estate including the share of Read the Full Piece of writing sons was sold in execution of the payment order and therefore qua that property the sons had no interest left. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is, however, inapplicable to the State. Git (1), Lord Wrenbury stated the rule in the following terms : If, in fact, there is a conflict between the earlier clause and the later clauses and it is not possible to give effect to all of them, then the rule of construction is well-established that it is the earlier clause that must override the later clauses and not vice versa.
wards it to Jamshedpur. ” The learned Judge then refers to the two clauses cor- responding to the last two clauses in Exhibit B, and comes to the conclusion that their effect was merely to, restore the position as it was when the original Patni was created, and that, in consequence, the purchaser was entitled to the Patni as it was created in 1820, (1) A. Immudi Kanaka Rammaya Kounden (2) the whole interest of the coparcenary was held to be sold taking into consideration the evidence which had been placed on the record.
Now, it is to be observed that in deciding that the Chaukidari Chakaran lands granted in 1899 became merged is lot Kooly, as it was in 1820, the learned Judge did not consider the effect of the clause providing for sale of those lands as a distinct entity under the provisions of the Regulation when there was default in the payment of ret payable thereon under the deed, and that, in our opinion, deprives the deci- sion of much of its value.