This duty was repealed as from 25 June 2013 (Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2013 (SI 2013/1238) article 7). In anticipation of the incorporation of that Company the karta of the 71 family took over the concern, carried it on and supplied the finance at all stages out of the joint family funds and the finding is that he never contributed anything out of his separate Property Advocates Of India High Court, if he had any. It is clear that though the proceeding in which the High Court passed the impugned order may be said to be an independent proceeding, one of the tests applied was that it did not determine the rights of the parties as the controversy as to the liability of the assessee still remained to be determined by the Board.
the State of Uttar Pradesh and the respondents, the accused. 690 not to be a final order on two grounds : (1) that the order was made under a jurisdiction which was consultative and standing by itself, it did not bind or affect the rights of the parties though the ultimate order which would be passed by the Board would be based on the opinion expressed by the Property Lawyers India High Court Court, -and (2) that on a construction of Art. Rohatgi having been appointed mananaging director because of his being a promoter of the company and having actually taken over the concern of India High Court Property Advocates Electric Works from Milkhi Rain and others.
17-20) indicated that this was a response to suggestions that the duty had become “burdensome and unnecessary”, and having regard to the fact that officer reports “typically provide far more detail on the logic and reasoning behind a particular decision than a decision notice”, so that the requirement to provide a summary “adds little to the transparency or the quality of the decision-taking process”; and also having regard to the “greater level of transparency in the decision-taking process”, resulting from increased ease of access to information, both on-line and through the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
They were still pending before the Special Judge. Whether in entering into a partnership with outsiders, the manager acted . so far as the partners are concerned, it is the manager who is recognised as a partner. The karta of the Hindu undivided family, however, may, and in fact, does, enter into partnership with outsiders on behalf and for the benefit of his joint family, but which he so, the other members of the family do not, vis-a-vis the outsiders become partners Property Lawyer in High Court India the firm.
The Articles of Association of the Company provided for the appointment as managing director of the very person who, as the karta of the family, had promoted the Company. The decision Property Advocates in High Court India State of Uttar Pradesh v. It did not purport to decide the rights of the parties i. This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated October 7, 1963 in D. his individual capacity and for his own benefit, or he did so as representing his joint family and for its benefit, is a question of fact.
The ,acquisition of the business, the floatation of the Company and appointment of the managing director appear to us to be inseparably linked together. So far as the outsiders , become partners in the firm. The question is what would be the position if (a) the application was an independent proceeding, and (b) if it affected the right of the Union Government. This decision was clearly on the footing that the respondents’ application for production of the document in which the Union Government, not a party to the trial, claimed privilege was an interlocutory and not an independent proceeding.
The court to consider whether that principle was applicable to the income derived by a manager as a partner of a managing agent to remuneration received by the manager as the managing director of the company, and held that if the manager was appointed a managing ,director as representing the Hindu undivided family, the income, received would be taxable as the income of the Hindu undivided family. 31 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Patna an appeal would lie to the Privy Council only in cases of orders passed by the High Court in its appellate or original jurisdiction and not the advisory jurisdiction conferred by the Act.
The recitals in the agreement also clearly point to the fact of B. speaking for the Court observed as follows at pages 331-332 of the Report “The karta was one of the promoters of the Company which he floated with a view to take over the India Property Advocate Electric Works as a going concern. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. The finding in this case is that the promotion of the Company and the taking over of the concern and the financing of it were all done with the help of the joint family funds and the said B.
Civil Writ Petition no. The criminal proceedings, said the Court, were the proceedings against the respondents for an offence under s. The joint family assets were used for acquiring the concern and for financing it and in lieu of all that detriment to the joint family properties the joint family got not only the shares standing in the names of two members of the family but also, as part and parcel of the same scheme, the managing directorship of the company when incorporated.
The question was whether the order rejecting the State’s claim of privilege from producing a certain document was a final order within the meaning of Art. 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The court also said that assuming that the order decided some right of the Union Government, that Government was neither a party to the criminal proceedings nor a party either before the High Court or this Court. The Explanatory Memorandum (paras 7.
If, for the purpose of contribution of his share of the capital in the firm, the karta brought in monies, out of the till of the Hindu undivided family, then he must be regarded as having entered into for the benefit of the Hindu undivided family, and the other members of his family he would be all profits received by him as his share out of profits, and such profits would be assessable as hands of the Hindu undivided family.
By its judgment the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondents and quashed the orders of the Board of Revenue dated July 24, 1959, April 8, 1960 and July 16, 1962. The order, therefore , was an interlocutory order pending the said proceedings. Sujan Singh(1) does not help because the proceeding in which the impugned order was passed was assumed to be an interlocutory one arising from and during the course of the trial itself.
It only enabled the accused to have the said document proved and exhibited in the case and therefore was a procedural step for adducing evidence. In the course of his judgment, S. In the course of those proceedings the respondents applied for the production of the document by the Union Government and that was allowed by the Court.