LexLords NRI Legal Services In USA By NRI Legal Services LexLords
NRI legal services - https://lexlords.com/judicial-separation/. The dissatisfaction caused by the said adjudication, constrained the assessee to approach the High Court in Commercial Tax Revision no. In that appli- cation one of the points urged was that the grounds in support of the detention were false, vague and fantastic and that the detention order was made in bad faith. In Ram Kumar Das (supra), Section 106 was considered by a bench of four judges of this court. The High Court of Punjab upheld their 841 conviction and sentence and granted them a certificate under article 134(1)(c)of the Constitution that the case is a fit one for appeal to this Court.
If it is no contract in law, the section will be operative and regulate the duration of the lease. A copy of the said order was served on the petitioner at the time of his ar- rest. ' (emphasis laid by this Court) The learned senior counsel further places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of K. Two affida- vits were filed on behalf of the State in support of the detention order. On the fact of that case, the court held that 'the difficulty in applying this rule to the present case arises from the fact that tenancy from year to year or reserving an yearly rent can be made only by registered instrument as lays down in Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act.
It has no doubt been recognised in several cases that the mode in which a rent is expressed to be payable affords a presumption that the tenancy is of a character corresponding there to. Consequently, when the rent reserved is an annual rent, the presumption would arise that the tenancy was an annual tenancy unless there is something to rebut the presumption. 27 of the Evidence Act and may have to be reviewed on a future occasion. The learned senior counsel submits that in the instant case, the requirements under Section 106 of the Act need to be adhered to, as clause 6 of the agreement operates as a contract to the contrary.
22 Schedule II Part A of the U. Saha it may be implied, but it certainly should be a valid contract. upto enforcement of notification no. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZL ALl J. It was specifically mentioned in the grounds that it was not in the public interest to disclose further facts. The High Court formulated the point in issue which reads as follows:- Whether the Bitumen and Bitumen Emulsion are one and the same commodity for the purposes of interpretation of Entry No.
Value Added Tax Act, 2002 as was originaly enacted i. On the same date grounds of detention were served on the petitioner as required by section 7 of the Act. It was also held that rule of construction embodied in this section applies not only to express leases of uncertain duration but NRI Legal Services also to leases implied by law which may be inferred from possession and acceptance of rent and other circumstances. It was further held that it is not disputed that a contract to the contrary as contemplated by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act need not be an express contract; it may be implied, but it certainly should be a valid contract.
The petitioner moved the High Court of Bombay NRI Legal Services under article 226 of the Constitution complaining that his detention was illegal and praying that he should be forthwith released. or (c) be executed by the Central Registrar or any person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, by attachment and sale or sale without attachment of any property of the person or a multi-State co-operative society against whom the decision or order has been made. That application was, on April 17, 1951, dismissed by the Bombay High Court.
According to the affidavit of Venilal Tribho- vandas Dehejia, Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Home Department, filed in answer to the present application, this report of the Advisory Board was placed before the Govern- ment and, on April 13, 1951, the Government decided to confirm the order of detention. --The three appellants were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge at Amritsar and found guilty of having murdered two persons named Darshan Singh NRI Legal Services and Achhar Singh and sentenced to transportation for life.
In the meantime, the case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board which on Aprils, 1951, made a report stating that in its opinion there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. This court held that this section 106 lays down the rule of construction which is to be applied when there is no period agreed upon between the parties and in such cases duration has to be determined by the reference to the object for purpose for which tenancy is created. On February 15, 1951, the petitioner was arrested under an order made on February 13, 1951, by the then District Magistrate, Surat, in exercise of powers conferred on him by the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
II/1042-D (11) Home Department (Political) Bombay Castle, To 28th April, 1951. This decision was, on April 28, 1951, communicated to the District Magistrate, Surat, in a confidential letter in the terms following :-- 615 Confidential letter No. 27 of the Evidence Act having been made by several accused persons either simultaneously or otherwise, some of the decided cases have gone further than is warranted by the language of sec.
With regard to the rule applicable to cases where there is clear and unimpeachable evidence as to independent and authentic statements of the nature referred to in sec.
