There is no occasion to add to the value judgment whether conduct was cheating a similar, but perhaps not identical, value judgment whether it was dishonest. In the case, of an unincorporated Society, club or. 788F dated 21-3-1922 under which the income of indigenous hill men other than persons in the service of government, residing in certain areas were exempt from tax. The India High Court Property Lawyers Court’s view was that the Managing Agents act under the direction of the directors and unless the directors were themselves controlling the voting power above the limit stated by the Explanation, the company must be regarded as one in which (1) [1955] 28 I.
Commissioner of Income-Tax(2). Some might say that all cheating is by definition dishonest. On the basis of those notifications, he wanted us to spell out a well recognised legislative practice and history under which the government servants as a class were excluded from the benefit of income tax exemption extended to other persons similarly situated. The members are undoubtedly entitled to compel the Society to act according to its constitution and to apply the Property Lawyers India for the purposes for which it is held, but on that account the Property Lawyer in High Court of the Society cannot be treated as the India Property Lawyers of the members.
From the proved facts, it is evident that PWs 17 and 19 had gone to the field with their friends, PW 19 being armed with a 463 deadly -weapon, with a view to intimidate Jamuna and to assert their -possession. A registered Society is a body ‘corporate with power to hold property and is capable of entering into contracts. In that case the High Court had held that directors, qua directors must be contrasted with the public and if the directors held more than 75% of the voting power then alone the company could be said to be one in which the public were not substantially interested.
This Court upheld the. The validity of that provision was challenged on the basis of Art. From the mere fact that the Society. They also constituted an unlawful assembly. There is nothing on the record of the case which shows that the Society is acting merely as an- agent of its members in providing facilities for making food available to the members. The property in law is the property of 427 the Society. It cannot be assumed that property which it holds is property of which its members are owners.
After setting out the legislative background of that provision, this Court observed: In this connection, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Narottam Kishore Dev Varma and Ors. Nor can it be said that the Society is holding its property including refreshments prepared by it for supply to its members as a trustee for its members. “Permission is granted under Section 481(1)(a) of Chapter 30 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act of 1949 to file complaint for the offence committed in breach of the provisions of law as shown in the above report.
In that event, the addition of a legal element of dishonesty would add nothing. a firm or an association ordinarily the supply and distribution by such a Society, club, firm or an association of goods belonging to it to its members may not result in sale of the goods which are jointly held for the benefit of the members by the Society, club, firm or the association, when by virtue of the relinquishment of the common rights of the members the property stands transferred to a member in payment of a price, and the transaction may not prima facie be regarded as a ‘sale’ within the meaning of the Act.
The High Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal following its earlier decision reported in Raghuvan8hi Mills Ltd. It is, however, unnecessary in this case to say more, for, the case of the respondent Society falls within the definition of ‘sale’ and no assistance need be sought from the first Explanation to s. In that event, the addition of the legal element of dishonesty would subtract from the essentials of cheating, and legitimise the illegitimate. validity of that provision having regard to the legislative and historical background of that provision, but at the same time observed that considered in the light of basic principles of equality before law, it would be odd to allow the section to continue prospectively for all time to come.
Union of India Property Lawyer and another(1). The third ground that “a businessman of Barahiya disclosed that he (Rameshwarlal Patwari) visited Barahiya on several occasions and purchased gram, gramdal under various (1) [1951] INSC 44; [1952] S. Others might say that some forms of cheating, such as deliberate interference with the game without deception, are wrong and cheating, but not dishonest. Therein this Court was called upon to consider the validity of s. Therefore they were clearly guilty of criminal trespass.
2(n) is in its entirety ultra vires the State Legislature. supplies refreshments to its members only and claims to make no profit, it cannot be inferred that in preparing refreshments, and making them available to its members it is acting as an agent of the members. 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure which prescribed that a Ruler of a former Indian State cannot be sued in any court otherwise competent to try the suit except with the consent of the Central Government certified in writing by a Secretary to the Government.
Either way, the addition would unnecessarily complicate the question whether what is proved amounts to cheating. By providing that a transfer of property in goods from a corporate body to its members for a price, the Legislature does not over- step the limits of its authority,_ and it cannot on that account be held that the first Explanation to s. ” The Deputy Health Officer (including Deputy Health Officer. (1) A State is not immune as respects proceedings relating to a contract of employment between the State and an individual where the contract was made in the United Kingdom or the work is to be wholly or partly performed there.
The Society is a person : the property in the refreshments which it supplies to its members is vested in the Society and when refreshments are supplied for a price paid or promised transfer of property in the refreshment results.