LexLords NRI Legal Services Chandigarh By NRI Legal Services LexLords

Appellate Tribu L/B(D)2SCI(a) 276 nal implies, as pointed out by the High Court, that a business was carried on by a partnership composed of two partners each of which was a Hindu undivided family, that there was a, disruption of both the families and that on and after such disruption the business was carried on by a partnership centered into by NRI Legal Services and between the separated male members of the two families.

LB(D)2SCT-2(a) 244 Held, that as the will expressly vested the sons NRI Legal Services with abso- lute rights with full powers of alienation, the property be- queathed to them was not ancestral property in their hands vis a vis their own male issue. The fixing of an anterior date for the ascertainment of value may not, in certain circumstances, be a violation of the constitutional requirement as, for instance, when the proposed scheme of acquisition becomes known before it is launched and prices rise sharply in anticipation of the benefits to be derived under it, but the fixing of an anterior date, which might have no relation to the value of the land when it is acquired, may be, NRI Legal Services many years later, cannot but be regarded as arbitrary.

Further, the statement of case drawn up by the Appellate Tribunal, which is binding on the assessee, clearly indicates that up to 13th April, 1943, the business was a partnership NRI Legal Services concern carried on by two Dayabhaga Hindu undivided families and that it was after that date that the eight members of the two families constituted themselves into a partnership. The returns in the firm's files up to 1943-44 also show only two partners-Kshetra Mohan Sadhukhan and sons and Sannyasi Charan Sadhukhan and sons-each having an eight annas share.

It is only because the fact found was that prior to 13th April, 1943, the business was carried on by a partnership of two Hindu undivided families which prima facie means a partnership between two Kartas representing two Hindu undivided families and that from 14th April, 1943, it became a business of eight individual members of two disrupted families that the question of law could arise. NRI Legal Services The learned Judges (1) [1946] HCA 11; 72 C. Trinity HBSC: Avalahalli and Herohalli (correct name Harohalli) villages, cleared for acquisition of 94-18 acres, Avalahalli (73-33 Acres) and Herohalli (22-25 acres)(both in Yelahanka Bobli) (Action: Revenue Department) On 10.

Hence, the present appeals. , constituted of eight partners then there could be no occasion for reciting that "the firm was reconstituted as constituted of eight partners". Manian @ Manikanda, for the offences under Sections 201, 302, 376 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code. In our opinion, therefore, the answer given by the High Court to the referred question was correct. As already stated, the application dated the 19th October, 1943, also indicates that the parties themselves considered that the business was carried on by two partners Further, the very question referred by the.

to force, the fixing of the market value on December 31,1946, as the ceiling on compensat I ion, without reference to the value of the land at the time of the acquisition is arbitrary and cannot be regarded as due compliance in letter and spirit with the requirement of article 31 (2). Turning now to the provisions relating to compensation under the impugned Act, it will be seen that the latter part of the proviso to section 8 limits the amount of compensation so as not to exceed the market value of the land on December 31, 1946, no matter when the land is acquired.

1987, and on the basis of the clearance granted by the Committee the state government granted approval to acquire the lands in question. It is from 1944-45 that eight partners are being shown. 1988, the Additional Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Bangalore passed an order under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, to inquire into certain allegations made against 98 House Building Co-Operative Societies of Bangalore City, including the respondent-Society, and appointed Sri G.

2004 allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned single judge and restored the acquisition proceedings. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the first four recitals as clearly indicating that even before the 13th April, 1943, the eight individual members of the two families carried on business in partnership. Aggrieved of the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondent-Society filed Writ Appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court challenging the correctness of the same urging certain NRI Legal Services grounds.

If, as we hold, the assessee is not entitled to go behind the facts so found by the Appellate Tribunal in the statement of the case and as is implicit in the question itself, then there can be no doubt that there had been a change in the persons carrying on the business within the meaning of section 8 of the Excess Profits Tax Act and it has not been argued otherwise. If the firm was before 1st Baisak, 1350 B. We also agree with the High Court that if the case of the assessee was that even before 14th April, 1943, there was a partnership of eight persons and if that case was accepted by the Appellate Tribunal then no question of law could have arisen on those facts.

14th April, 1943, the said firm was reconstituted as constituted of eight partners. The Division Bench of the High Court held that there was no evidence on record to suggest that the outside agency (M/s Srinivasa Enterprises) had influenced the acquisition proceedings. Considering that the impugned Act is a permanent enactment and lands may be acquired under it many years after it came in. Rao, the then Controller of Weights and Measures to investigate into the allegations of irregularities and malpractices against the concerned societies.

This construction of those clauses is clearly inconsistent with the fifth recital which says that on and from the 1st Baisak, 1350 B. The prosecution in the instant case was lodged against the appellant herein - Kadamanian @ Manikandan, as well as, against co-accused - I. Accordingly, the Division Bench, by way of common final impugned judgment and order dated 06. The aforesaid offences were allegedly committed by the accused with reference to M.

On the other hand, it is clear from the material placed on record that the case of the respondent-Society was considered by the State Level Co-ordination Committee on 25. , on the other hand, was very critical of this view and he expressed his own opinion(2) as follows: "The doctrine of surrender having been imported into the Hindu law by judicial decision, we are entitled to import the complementary rule essential to the prevention of fraud that the widow cannot by making a surrender defeat rights created by herself and creation of which was within her authority.