LexLords NRI Legal Services Fees By NRI Legal Services LexLords

NRI legal services - https://lexlords.com/property-documentation/. It is true that from a practical point of view it-may be difficult for the shareholders, if they desire to sell the shares, to find a purchaser who will be willing to buy shares in a company which is governed by an Ordinance of this kind but, nevertheless, it cannot be said that the State has taken possession of the shares in the sense in which that expression used in article 31(2) has been explained by me in Subodh Gopal Bose's case(2). 1985 with that of M/S Sree Srinivasa Enterprises and as per the said agreement the society has to pay Rs.

As regards the property of the shareholders the position is the same as in Chiranjitlal's case(1). It is said, as was done in Chiranjitlal's case(1 ), that certain valuable rights of the shareholders, e. , the right of voting, the right to elect directors and the right to apply for the winding up of the company have been taken away. They can hold them or dispose. Such disputes have to be decided by the Civil Court as specified under the Trust Act. There is also a reference that the society entered into an agreement dated 13.

can not decided by the arbitrator by taking recourse to the provisions of the Act. What has happened is that these rights which are only incidents of the ownership of the shares have been suspended or kept in abeyance and if this may be regarded as amounting to imposing restrictions on the exercise of the rights of ownership of the shares it may possibly be justified as an exercise in any emergency of the State's police power under clause (5) of article 19 by imposing by law reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public so as to secure the supply of an essential commodity and to prevent unempolyment.

in Chiranjitlal's case (1 ) at pages 904-906 and by me at pages 923-924. In the said report there is reference that the landowners have been paid the consideration for their lands through M/S Sree Srinivasa Enterprises. yard to M/S Sree Srinivasa Enterprises. If any dividend is declared they will get them. In the instant case, the 4th respondent along with the statement of objections has produced Audit Report as Annexure-I. Before the Appellate Tribunal also the same case was made, namely, that up to 13th, April, 1943, the business was a partnership concern of 'two Dayabhaga Hindu 273 undivided families, namely, the family of Kshetra Mohan NRI Legal Services Sadhukhan consisting of four adult male members and the family of Sannyasi Charan Sadhukhan also consisting of four' adult male members and that from 14th April, 1943, the, eight members of the two families constituted themselves into a partnership and carried on the business as such, al- though the contention of the assessee at one stage was that though the original partnership was entered into by NRI Legal Services the two kartas of the two families, in effect the partnership was between the adult members of the two families even at the inception.

The shares still belong to them. Therefore, there has been no infringement of the shareholders right to property under article 31(2). However, in its application under section 66(1) an attempt was made for the first time to suggest yet another case, namely that prior NRI Legal Services to 13th April, 1943, the business was carried on in partnership by two associations of persons and not by two Hindu undivided families, implying that before that date the business was carried on by the eight individual members of the two families.

The case made by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was that the business was carried on by the two Hindu undivided families right up to 13th April, 1943; when there was a disruption of both the families inter se and that after that day the eight individual members formed themselves into a partnership and carried on the business. In the course of the assessment the Excess Profits Tax Officer found that previous to 14th April, 1943, the business was carried on by two Hindu undivided families, that on 13th April, 1943, both the families were disrupted and since then the individual members of the two families began carrying on the business after forming a partnership concern and accordingly these new partners were not the same persons as the persons who carried on the business up to 13th April, 1943.

In other words, when the Trust Act exhaustively deals with the Trust, Trustees and beneficiaries and provides for adequate and sufficient remedies to all aggrieved persons by giving them a right to approach the Civil Court of principal original jurisdiction for redressal of their disputes arising out of Trust Deed and the Trust Act then, in our opinion, any such dispute pertaining to affairs of the Trust including the dispute inter se Trustee and beneficiary in relation to their right, duties, obligations, removal etc.

It was not suggested at any time before that at first there was a partnership of two kartas and then a partnership of the eight sons of the two kartas on and from the 17th June, 1934, and that such partnership of eight continued ever since then. If there is any winding up and if after payment of all liabilities there remains any surplus then they will participate in that surplus. In the first place, it is doubtful if any of these right can be called "property" within the meaning of article 31(2) for, by itself and apart from NRI Legal Services the shares, none of them can be acquired or disposed In the next place, the State has not taken possession of these rights as explained by Mukherjea J.