LexLords NRI Legal Services Simranjeet Singh By NRI Legal Services LexLords

NRI legal services - https://lexlords.com/title-search/. We need not pursue this matter further, for in the case now before us there is no evidence whatever to prove that all the members of the two families had individually become partners in the business at any time before the 14th April, 1943. the appropriate Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit, (but not beyond the period of the life of the Act itself). " Within the period of the life of the Act the Government can fix any period for the duration of the detention.

The section in view of these decisions should read thus :- "In any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of a person. The question as to the meaning of the words "such period as it thinks fit was neither argued nor decided in either of the cases mentioned above. 62,000 now lying in deposit in court as compensation for the loss they had suffered, without prejudice to any 371 further rights they may have against the Nawab or his estate.

" In the same case while upholding the validity of section 11, I made the following observations :-- "It may be pointed out that parliament may well have thought that it was unnecessary to fix any maximum period of deten- tion in the new statute which was of a temporary nature and whose own tenure of life was limited to one year. That decision is however subject to review and alteration before the time originally determined runs out. The documents to which reference will presently be made do not support the case now sought to be made by learned counsel for the assessee.

The affairs of the Hindu undivided family are looked after and managed by its karta. The words "such NRI legal services (read more) period as it thinks fit", in my opinion, oblige the Government to fix a period of the detention of the person concerned within the over-all limit of the period of the life of the Act. 1952, and no detention under the Act can continue there after the discretionary power could be exercised only subject to that over-all limit. That conten- tion was negatived.

took a contrary 641 view. " The point for decision in that case was whether it was necessary while enacting the Preventive Detention Act to fix a maximum period for the detention of a person as contem- plated by article 72 (7) of the Constitution, and whether for want of such fixation the statute was void. There is, however, nothing to prevent the individual members of one Hindu undivided family from entering into a partnership with the individual members of another Hindu undivided family and in such a case it is a partnership between the individual members and it is wholly inappropriate to describe such a partnership as one between two Hindu undivided families.

The result of the above decisions to my mind is this:that section 11 does not provide for an indefinite period of detention and is not bad on that ground, though Bose J. A Hindu undivided family is no doubt included in the expression "person" as defined in the Indian Income-tax Act as well as in the Excess Profits Tax Act but it is not a juristic person NRI legal services (read more) for all purposes. (3) After the conveyance has been executed, the appellants will be paid Rs. But, if, as already observed, the new Act is to be in force only up to 1st April.

The detention of the peti- tioners therefore is bound to come to an end automatically with the life of the statute and in these circumstances Parliament may well have thought that it would be wholly unnecessary to legislate and provide a maximum period of detention 'for those detained under this law. When two kartas of two Hindu undivided families enter into a partnership agreement the partnership is popularly described as one between the two Hindu undivided families but in the LB(D)2SCI 274 eye of the law it is a partnership between the two kartas and the other members of the families do lot ipso facto become partners.

The point that arises for determination in the present case,however, is whether the Government when making an order under section 11 of the Act has got to specify a period for the continuance of the detention. 83 640 Government under that sub-section to continue the detention 'for such period as it thinks fit' authorises preventive detention for an indefinite period, which is contrary to the provisions of article 22 (4). Such temporary statutes cease to have any effect after they expire, they automatically come to an end at the expiry of the period for which they have been enacted and nothing further can be done under them.

Learned counsel for the assessee maintains that there has not been any variance in the case made by his client in- asmuch as the partnership which, according to him, was, being carried on by and between the individual members of one Hindu undivided family, namely, the four sons of Kshetra Mohan Sadhukhan and the individual members of another Hindu undivided family, namely, the four sons of Sannyasi Charan Sadhukhan may well have been described as a partnership between two Hindu undivided families.

It cannot be pre- sumed that every case requires detention for the maximum period. The government must make up its mind and decide in each individual case after the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board whether a particular detenu has to be kept in detention for the whole of the over-all peri- od, or for any period shorter than that.