15m, the amount by which the ransom was reduced. Q) and Voltas Limited v. ” (p 59; emphasis supplied) “There is no question that a police officer, like anyone else, may be liable in tort to a person who is injured as a direct result of his acts or omissions. ” The above provisions apply only to properties which are under . Turning to the language of Rule F, I consider that this “alternative course of action” contention goes nowhere.
Learned counsel for the workmen referred us to the decisions of this Court in the Tata Oil Mills Co. 56 of the Contract Act leading to frustration of the contracts. Even if one accepts that the “extra expense” must involve an alternative course of action, it seems to me that the owners’ claim satisfies that requirement. The difficulty arising by the Government orders in transporting the goods needed to meet the contract was not an impossibility contemplated by s.
Further, it is not the prosecution case that any action under sub-ss. Therefore, there was nothing objectionable on the part of the Vacation Judge working as a Judge of the India High Court Property Lawyers Court while he was heading the Commission, for, when the Commission was not actually sitting; he was entitled to sit and act as a Judge of the High Court. the control of the managing officers or managing corporations. Fresh contracts were prohibited but settlement of the outstanding contracts by payment of differences was not prohibited, nor was delivery of gut in pursuance of the contract and acceptance thereof at the due date by the Company prohibited.
The plea that there was frustration of the contracts, and on that account the Company was liable to refund all the amounts which it had received, has no substance. It appears to me that (ignoring other sums for present purposes) the right analysis of the owners’ claim is that it is for (i) US$1. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal on this ground, largely for the same reasons given by the Divisional Court (para 108), and specifically agreed with the last two sentences quoted above (para 111).
As we have already held, the outstanding contracts were not at all affected by the Government Order. any other law for the time being in force, eject such person and take possession of such Top Property Lawyers India and may, for such purpose, use or cause to he used such force as may be necessary. They do not apply to properties which have ceased to be evacuee properties. r, except with the permit of the Central Government from any station outside the State of Uttar Pradesh which was situated within a radius of thirty miles from the border of Uttar Pradesh does not lead to frustration’ of the contracts.
On that basis, as I see it, the incurring of the US$160,000 did represent an alternative course of action, in the sense that the cargo interests use that expression, from the payment of the US$4. (2) The Crown Court may, on the application of the prosecutor, increase the term of imprisonment or detention fixed in respect of the confiscation order under subsection (2) of section 139 of the 2000 Act (as it has effect by virtue of section 9 of this Act) if the effect of subsection (1) above is to increase the maximum period applicable in relation to the order under subsection (4) of that section.
(3) If any person fails to surrender possession of any Property Lawyer in High Court India on demand made under sub-section (2) the managing officer or managing corporation may, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in. We do not in the circumstances think it necessary to determine to what extent, if any, it would be open to the Central Government by an order issued in exercise of the power conferred by s. 349 any activities Property Lawyer in High Court India which the workmen participated or contributed their labour.
So he may be liable in damages for assault, unlawful arrest, wrongful imprisonment and malicious prosecution, and also for negligence. We also need not express any opinion on the other contentions raised by the assessee, i. In those cases, the principle laid down was that, if any income was earned Best Property Lawyers in India High Court the course of the normal business of the Company in which the workmen were also engaged, that income must be included in the profits for calculation of surplus available for distribution of bonus.
85m under Rule A and (ii) US$160,000 under Rule F, on the basis that (i) the US$1. 85m, as a reasonable sum paid to ransom the vessel and the cargo, is admittedly within Rule A, and (ii) the US$160,000, as negotiation period expenses, represents “extra expense incurred in place of” the US$4. 949 to make a provision which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act. The situations that were discussed in those cases were different.
15m: the former involved incurring vessel-operating expenses whereas the latter involved paying a ransom. Imposition by the Central Government of a prohibition by its notification dated March 1, 1950 restraining persons from offering and the Railway Administration from accepting for transportation by rail any g.