Difference between revisions of "A Simple Key For NRI Legal Services Unveiled"

From DIGIMAT Digital Learning Platform - Knowledge Base
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
(ii) The words 'carrying on business' mean the carrying on of any trade, profession, calling or  Advocates; [http://lexlord.com inquiry], other practice or activity which yields or is capable of yielding income but do not include service under Government or a local body". In another case Wilson v. "The Advocates ([http://acquitlaw.com/arrest/ inquiry]) rule is that when a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as to  Advocates; [http://nrilegalservices.me/services/property-search/ inquiry], incorporate itself, or a, part of itself, into the earlier, then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed (except where that would lead to a repugnancy, inconsistency or absurdity) as if the altered words had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old  Advocates - [http://lawyerchandigarh.com/quashing-of-fir/ inquiry], words scored  Advocates [[https://lexlords.com/power-of-attorney/ web site]] out so that thereafter there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all".<br><br> The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal, on a calculation of their own, held that the possession by the appellants of so many thousand- rupee notes was an impossibility and that these notes must represent income from, undisclosed sources and as such be added to the assessable income of the appellants. This is more so as the respondents/defendants in the suit had undertaken in terms of the accepted site plan, to rehabilitate the appellants in the proposed shopping complex in recognition of their rights as lawful tenants of the plots in their occupation, he maintained.<br><br> Luthra insisted, that as concurrently held in the earlier proceedings, the appellants are neither encroachers nor intruders nor unauthorized occupants of the suit property, a finding unopposed and unchallenged as on date, and thus the initiative to oust them, under the garb of the development plan, the statutes invoked and the public interest, is not only in violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, but also lacks in bona fide.<br><br> the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. It was therefore held that the order of attachment obtained by the appellant from the Bombay High Court was invalid. 2011 is incompetent and incomplete not being under the Highways Act as well as Section 56 of the Act 1966 and is thus liable to be quashed on this count alone. Learned senior counsel argued that the notification contemplating the control line and the development plan being dated 9. It was also held that there was a valid order of transfer to the Punjab High Court, of the execution proceedings taken by the appellant in respect of his decree.<br><br> The Appellate, Tribunal on appeal accepted the explanation of the assesses in respect of 31 of the notes but not with regard to the rest and rejected their application for a reference of the matter to the High Court. 20,000 on the 28th December, 1946, Rs. The case of the appellants was that the said notes were a part of the cash balance and in further support of their case -they filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner three affidavits by persons actually making the payments, in respect of certain entries in the cash-book to prove that Rs.<br><br> It was held that the provisions of the Banking Companies Act of 1953 had an overriding effect and that exclusive jurisdiction was vested thereby in the appropriate High Court notwithstanding anything in. As the situation as it obtains at the present, is the making of the indifferent and careless inaction on the part of the State Government and the Sansthan in particular, the appellants not being responsible for the delay in the execution of the decree, their proposed ouster, if permitted to be actualized, would not only result in irreparable loss and injury to them, but also tantamount to allowing the respondents/judgment debtors to reap the benefits of their own wrong, he urged.<br><br> The assessees moved the High Court and the Tribunal was directed under s. It is against this order that the present appeal has been brought. Luthra maintained that the impugned notice dated 11. Neither the Appellate Assistant Commissioner nor the Income-tax Officer, who was present at the hearing of the appeal, called for the deponents in order to cross-examine them with reference to their statement in the affidavits.<br><br> Apart from contending that the Municipal council being not the owner of the land involved, lacks in authority to issue the impugned notice, collusion between the State Government, Municipal Council and the Sansthan has also been pleaded, rendering the repugned action illegal and non est bona fide. 8,500, on the 6th of January, 1946, were paid in thousand-rupee notes. 15,000 on the 6th of January, 1946, and Rs. 2003 respectively, these subsequent prescriptions, though statutorily endorsed cannot be invoked with retrospective effect, thereby rendering the compromise decree passed more than two decades prior thereto and the rights conferred thereby, non est.<br><br> The said order was accordingly set aside. Robertson (4) under the statute the duty was imposed on all goods "imported into or exported from Berwick harbour" which extended down the Tweed to the sea but no part of it extended above the bridge. 8,000, out of a sum of Rs.
+
That 343 would have been a good ground of attack, if the Court of Wards was in the position of a guardian of the properties of the minor, but, as already stated, that is not  Advocates ([http://acquitlaw.com/cognizance-of-offenses/ hop over to this web-site]) its true character. There was therefore no occasion for the appellant, to assail the order of his detention, based on pleas and contentions, as would have been available to the appellant, under Section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act, and the other grounds expressed above. 2 lakhs payable by the 1st respondent herein.<br><br>The said order, as the facts would uncurtain, came into existence on the basis of proposal of the Sponsoring Authority (Directorate of Enforcement) and the Empowered Officer of the Central Government (the Detaining Authority). The initial allocation of the respondents to different Corps was based on parameters prescribed for that purpose depending inter alia upon the number of actual vacancies in Arms, Arms Support or Services, operational commitments and requirements arising from new raisings.<br><br>Despite the threat, the daughter disclosed the incident to her parents. In case, the witness is in possession of any material or documents, the same shall be taken over by the officer concerned in his personal custody. 2013 under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. When the family stood reconciled to the situation, something extremely untoward happened. Merit of the candidates, the need for an equal distribution of vacancies applying what is described as ˜Black Method and the individual choice expressed by the cadets were also some of the major factors that were taken into consideration while making allocations.<br><br>The Respondents were commissioned into various Corps/streams of the Indian Army after they successfully  Advocates - [http://lexlords.in/right-to-manage/ navigate to this website], passed out from the Indian Military Academy/Officers Training Academy. It was submitted, that Section 12A is invoked merely by a declaration, whereas, the substantive order of detention is passed under Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act. The amounts, if any, paid by the appellant pursuant to the interim orders of this Court shall be adjusted towards the payments due to the 1st respondent for future procurement of power by the appellant in such manner as the appellant deems fit and proper.<br><br>The interim orders granted earlier stand dissolved. By the said communication in compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act, the detenu was informed of his right to make a representation against his detention to the Detaining Authority. We believe that debate in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment revolved around more than one substantial question of law justifying the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. There, his contention was that the Court of Wards had acted with gross negligence in agreeing to a term so manifestly disadvantageous to the estate.<br><br>1977, the original position stood revived, inasmuch as, the order of detention would thereafter be an order under Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act without a Section 12A declaration super-added, and as such, was assailable in terms of the grounds available to a detenu under Section 8, and the other grounds referred to above. 2013 and lodged in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. 1976 when the order of detention under Section 3 was passed, till the order of detention was revoked on the lifting of the emergency on 21.<br><br>Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that an order of detention was issued on 08. It should be observed that the stand which the respondent  Advocates ([http://slachd.com/practice-areas/fathers-rights/ hop over to this web-site]) took with reference to the cess clause in the courts below was different from that taken in this Court. The grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu vide communication dated 08. Be it stated, pursuant to the order of detention, the detenu was detained on 25.<br><br>III) The officer deputed to have the statement recorded shall also ensure, that there is no other person besides the concerned witness, in the room, in which the testimony of PW5 is to be recorded. The minor daughter of the appellant who was raped by the accused persons was threatened with dire consequences in case she disclosed the incident. The incident, as alleged, occurred on 06. We do not find any substance in the submission.<br><br>Keeping in view the future of the girl and the social repercussions, they chose to suffer in silence rather than set the criminal law in motion. In other words, the argument was not that the Court of Wards failed to apply its mind to the cess clause but that it failed to realise the full implications thereof, and that the minor had consequently suffered. It was contended, that as soon as the emergency was lifted on 21.<br><br>It was the vehement contention of the learned counsel, that the order of detention under section 3 read with section 12A of the COFEPOSA Act, subsisted from 11. As we have held that the Court of Wards did apply its mind to the question and formed its own judgment on it, its decision is not open to question, and the attack on the deed dated 26-3-1915 must in consequence  Advocates ([http://slachd.com/how-nri-can-get-divorce-in-india/ hop over to this web-site]) fail. It was the assertion of the learned counsel, in the present case, that the order under section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act, could not be assailed by the appellant as he was released on the same day, i.<br><br>It is a statutory body with powers granted to it by section 18, and its action thereunder cannot be attacked on the ground that it bad erred or was mistaken in its conclusion. The appeal is allowed with costs quantified at Rs.

Latest revision as of 18:28, 26 October 2018

That 343 would have been a good ground of attack, if the Court of Wards was in the position of a guardian of the properties of the minor, but, as already stated, that is not Advocates (hop over to this web-site) its true character. There was therefore no occasion for the appellant, to assail the order of his detention, based on pleas and contentions, as would have been available to the appellant, under Section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act, and the other grounds expressed above. 2 lakhs payable by the 1st respondent herein.

The said order, as the facts would uncurtain, came into existence on the basis of proposal of the Sponsoring Authority (Directorate of Enforcement) and the Empowered Officer of the Central Government (the Detaining Authority). The initial allocation of the respondents to different Corps was based on parameters prescribed for that purpose depending inter alia upon the number of actual vacancies in Arms, Arms Support or Services, operational commitments and requirements arising from new raisings.

Despite the threat, the daughter disclosed the incident to her parents. In case, the witness is in possession of any material or documents, the same shall be taken over by the officer concerned in his personal custody. 2013 under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. When the family stood reconciled to the situation, something extremely untoward happened. Merit of the candidates, the need for an equal distribution of vacancies applying what is described as ˜Black Method and the individual choice expressed by the cadets were also some of the major factors that were taken into consideration while making allocations.

The Respondents were commissioned into various Corps/streams of the Indian Army after they successfully Advocates - navigate to this website, passed out from the Indian Military Academy/Officers Training Academy. It was submitted, that Section 12A is invoked merely by a declaration, whereas, the substantive order of detention is passed under Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act. The amounts, if any, paid by the appellant pursuant to the interim orders of this Court shall be adjusted towards the payments due to the 1st respondent for future procurement of power by the appellant in such manner as the appellant deems fit and proper.

The interim orders granted earlier stand dissolved. By the said communication in compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act, the detenu was informed of his right to make a representation against his detention to the Detaining Authority. We believe that debate in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment revolved around more than one substantial question of law justifying the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. There, his contention was that the Court of Wards had acted with gross negligence in agreeing to a term so manifestly disadvantageous to the estate.

1977, the original position stood revived, inasmuch as, the order of detention would thereafter be an order under Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act without a Section 12A declaration super-added, and as such, was assailable in terms of the grounds available to a detenu under Section 8, and the other grounds referred to above. 2013 and lodged in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. 1976 when the order of detention under Section 3 was passed, till the order of detention was revoked on the lifting of the emergency on 21.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that an order of detention was issued on 08. It should be observed that the stand which the respondent Advocates (hop over to this web-site) took with reference to the cess clause in the courts below was different from that taken in this Court. The grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu vide communication dated 08. Be it stated, pursuant to the order of detention, the detenu was detained on 25.

III) The officer deputed to have the statement recorded shall also ensure, that there is no other person besides the concerned witness, in the room, in which the testimony of PW5 is to be recorded. The minor daughter of the appellant who was raped by the accused persons was threatened with dire consequences in case she disclosed the incident. The incident, as alleged, occurred on 06. We do not find any substance in the submission.

Keeping in view the future of the girl and the social repercussions, they chose to suffer in silence rather than set the criminal law in motion. In other words, the argument was not that the Court of Wards failed to apply its mind to the cess clause but that it failed to realise the full implications thereof, and that the minor had consequently suffered. It was contended, that as soon as the emergency was lifted on 21.

It was the vehement contention of the learned counsel, that the order of detention under section 3 read with section 12A of the COFEPOSA Act, subsisted from 11. As we have held that the Court of Wards did apply its mind to the question and formed its own judgment on it, its decision is not open to question, and the attack on the deed dated 26-3-1915 must in consequence Advocates (hop over to this web-site) fail. It was the assertion of the learned counsel, in the present case, that the order under section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act, could not be assailed by the appellant as he was released on the same day, i.

It is a statutory body with powers granted to it by section 18, and its action thereunder cannot be attacked on the ground that it bad erred or was mistaken in its conclusion. The appeal is allowed with costs quantified at Rs.

Retrieved from "http://kb.digimat.in/index.php?title=A_Simple_Key_For_NRI_Legal_Services_Unveiled&oldid=186210"