In Boddapalli Jagannadham and anr. 636 was first entertained ‘by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. Such an order would have been variable under section 31(2)(b) of the Act. The photostats have been proved to our satisfaction to be genuine photographs of the letters. 20 he enjoys the protection of the Act because the room is no, longer a room in a hotel.
The husband subsequently sought to be released from his undertaking on the basis that, in return, the court would make an order for periodical payments against him in favour of the wife on different terms. This case was followed in Subramaniam Chettiar v. The use of the photostats without the originals was questioned before us but not in the High Court. In circumstances in which an undertaking could have been framed as an order, it would be illogical for answers to questions about the existence and exercise of the jurisdiction to grant release from it to be different from answers to questions about the existence and exercise of the jurisdiction to vary any such order.
But he cast his application for release as an application for variation under section 31(2)(b). The issue raised between the parties is undoubtedly justiciable and has to be considered as such; but in doing so, we cannot ignore the fact that the problem posed by the issue, though secular in character, is very complex to determine; its decision would depend on social, sociological, historical, religious and philosophical considerations; and when it is remembered that the development and growth of Hindu religion spreads over a large period nearly 4,000 years, the complexity of the problem would at once become patent.
The copies were made through the Indian Embassy and bore the certificate. There remains only the question of adverse possession. The consideration of this question, prima facie, appears to be somewhat inappropriate within the limits of judicial enquiry Property Lawyers in India a court of law. It is pointed out that there is nothing in the Evidence Act which makes a photograph of a disputed writing the basis of conviction. It is submitted that expert testimony as to handwriting can only be based upon the examination of the originals and not Property Advocate in High Court India photographs.
should exercise its prerogative of imposing assessment on land liable to be assessed Property Lawyers India High Court with public revenue. Property Advocates in India attempting to answer this question, we must inevitably enquire what are the distinctive features of Hindu -religion? The discovery with India Property Lawyer him of the visiting card and photograph of Laxmipat and the photograph and addresses of Balchand was an incriminating circumstance as Ethyl Wong was connected with Yau Mockchi on the one hand and these brothers at the other.
Secretary of State(2) . ” The conspiracy was headed by Yau Mockchi who in a sense was the brain behind the whole racket. As the resumption was of the melwaram only these rulings apply. Nor, it is submitted, expert testimony can be invited about it. Unfortunately, the originals were not available at the trial but only photostats of the letters. Further letters and writings of all the brothers were seized which were related to the conspiracy.
Because a room in a hotel is not (1) [1959] INSC 91; [1960] 1 S. Secretary of State(1 it was held that there is no period of limitation prescribed by any law within which alone Government. But that point does not arise and need not be decided. It is true that the appellants seek for reliefs in the present litigation on the ground that their civil rights to manage their temples according to the religious tenets are contravened; and so, the Court is bound to deal with the controversy as best as it can.
Are the appellants justified in contending that the Swaminarayan sect is a religion distinct and separate from the Hindu religion, and consequently, the temples belonging to the said sect do not fall within the ambit of s. In L v L [2006] EWHC 956 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 26, the husband had accepted an obligation to make periodical payments to the wife but the obligation had been expressed as an undertaking on his part rather than as an order by consent for periodical payments pursuant to section 23(1)(a) of the Act.
Since it was a pure question of law, we allowed it to be raised. Munby J declined to strike his application out. He held at para 113 that his entitlement to apply for variation “is not in any way affected either by the fact that the order was a consent order or by the fact that the relevant provisions are contained in undertakings rather than in the curial part of the order”. If the interest of the tenant of the hotel premises is determined, the sub-tenant to whom a room in the hotel has been lawfully sublet becomes under s, 20 a direct tenant of the landlord, It may be that when the sub-tenant of a room in a hotel becomes a direct tenant under s.