A Simple Key For Lawyer In Chandigarh Unveiled

The BEC was required to follow the Guidelines as laid down vide G. The State Commission applied the observation made in the above said case by this Court to the case on hand and held that the District Forum has committed a serious error in allowing the complaint filed by the appellant herein against the respondent-Company. Thus, there had been a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy covered to the vehicle by the appellant, as he had allowed six passengers to travel in the vehicle when the permitted load was only 1+1.

The signatures of five per- sons were appended on behalf of five parties respectively at the foot of the deed. The detenu made a representation on 11. Gift of mushaa where property divisible. 2013 which was received on 18. dated August 06, 2008 and June 26, 2009. The Review Petition filed against the dismissal of the Revision Petition by the appellant was also dismissed without considering the grounds urged for reviewing its order.

As per the Guidelines, the selection of the Developer was to be made through two stage bidding process, i. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. -This Appeal with a certificate of fitness under article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner at Ajmer raises an important question as to the connotation of the word "officer" contained in section 21(9), Indian Penal Code. dated June 29, 2007 for selection, contracting and monitoring of Consultants and Private Developers for PPP Projects in the State.

A gift of an undivided share (mushaa) in property which is capable of division is irregular (fasid), but not void (batil). 2013 after due consideration. In the opening paragraph of the deed the names and descriptions of the five parties thereto were set out. 2012 by setting aside the judgment and order of the District Forum. That Court, in the present case, was the Court of the District Judge and not the Court of the Additional Judge Mr.

It is not in dispute that Mohanlal was the karta of the joint family, and that he entered into the partnership on 23-8-1940 as such karta. After examining the material evidence on record, the National Commission has arrived at the conclusion and held that the factum of the vehicle in question carrying six passengers at the time of the occurrence of the accident was an undisputed fact. If all the five persons who were mentioned as partners in the deed of 1944 were partners of the old firm, there would be no change in the persons carrying on the business within s.

But that is because under the Hindu Law, the karta has the right when properly carrying on business to pledge the credit of the joint family to the extent of its assets, and not because the junior members become partners in the business. The State Commission accepted the appeal filed by the respondent-Company and dismissed the complaint Advocates (find more info) of the appellant, vide its order dated 29. Therefore, the endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words Advocates (find more info) in which the contract is expressed by the parties.

Accordingly, the State Government vide its G. It is well settled that when the karta of a joint Hindu family enters into a partnership with strangers, the members of the family do not ipso facto become partners in that firm. The creditors of Advocates (find more info) the firm would no doubt be entitled to proceed against the joint family assets including the shares of the non-partner copareeners for realisation of their debts.

The gift being irregular, and not void, it may be perfected and rendered valid by subsequent partition and delivery to the donee of the share given to him. The order of rejection was communicated to the detenu vide memorandum dated 29. 2013, and thereafter vide order dated 21. The liability of the junior members arises by reason of their status as coparceners and not by reason of any contract of partnership and it would follow therefore that when Mohanlal became a partner of the firm on 23-8-1940 Chhotelal and Bansilal could not be held by reason of that fact alone to have become partners therein, 145 Accordingly whether the question was to be considered on the principles of Hindu law or on the principles of the Excess Profits Tax Act there was a change in the personnel of the firm on 17-10-1944 and the matter fell within s.

2013 by the Jail Superintendent which was forwarded to the competent authority and thereafter the Special Secretary-cum-Director General, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, rejected the representation on behalf of the Central Government on 26. 8(1) of the Act by the mere fact of reshuffling of the shares among them but the real question for determination was whether Chhotelal and Bansilal were partners in the firm constituted on 23-8-1940.

They have no right to take part in its management or to sue for its dissolution. 2013 by the Under Secretary, Government of India. The word "forthwith", it has been observed, is of elastic import. Now, as we have seen, when Advocates (find more info) the original Court does not make a complaint under section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code or reject the application, then the only other Court competent to exercise these powers is the Court to which appeals from the original Court "ordinarily lie".

In its literal sense, it might be construed as meaning that the act to be performed forth;with in relation to another Advocates (secret info) should follow it automatically without any interval of time, or, -as held in some of the American. The National Commission upheld the order passed by the State Commission and dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the appellant by recording its reasons. If possession is once taken the gift is validated. Keeping in view the prescription enshrined under Section 8(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, reference was made to the Advisory Board and the detenu was heard by the Advisory Board on 04.

2013, he was informed that the Advisory Board was of the opinion that sufficient reasons existed for his detention. dated September 29, 2009 constituted BEC with regard to the operation of animal slaughter houses owned by urban local bodies in the State on the basis of PPP Model in accordance with G. In connection with the assessment for the assessment year 1949-1950 of Dulichand Lakshminarayan an unregistered firm, an application was made under s. 26-A of the Indian Income- Tax Act, 1922 before Income-Tax Officer, Raigarh, for its registration as a firm constituted under a Deed of Partnership dated 17th February, 1947.