LexLords Non Resident Indians By NRI Legal Services LexLords

The doctrine of unjust enrichment is a just and salutary doctrine. NRI Legal Services The 2nd defendant is the husband of the 1st defendant. State represents the people of the country. So far the law seems to be fairly settled and there is no room for controversy. Creditors who did not take an active part in the proceedings are not necessary parties to an appeal from an order rejecting a claim made in a proceeding under section 11 (2) of the U.

Kanakasabapathi was a selfmade man and built up a NRI Legal Services flourishing motor bus service and also acquired substantial properties, movable and immov- able. In the present case, the Corporation had floated the Scheme because of the reason that it has virtually stopped transport business and the purpose of the Scheme was to benefit itself by shrinking the strength of the employees as with no transport business need for such employees is not there. On her mother's death they both got into possession of all the properties including the motor service.

The technical rules of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the impleading of parties should not be applied to such proceedings. The plaintiff accordingly brought the present suit originally as one for administration but later amended it as one for partition and separate possession of her half share NRI Legal Services in the properties. In other words, he cannot collect the duty from his purchaser at one end and also collect the same duty from the State on the ground that it has been collected from him contrary to law.

In accordance with this direction, Paul went to the ,office of Mukherjee and saw him at his chamber NRI Legal Services at about 11 a. Here also, the Scheme provided that once the option is given, the same cannot be withdrawn. No one can speak of the people being unjustly enriched. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are daughters of one Kanakasabapathi Pillai. After that Paul placed the shares and the transfer deeds on the table. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934. Does it remain self-acquired property in his (1) Vide Muddun, v.

38,562-8-0 signed by the Punjab National Bank. -This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The controversy arises, however, on the question as to what kind of interest a son would take in the self-acquired property of his father which he receives by way of gift or testamentary bequest from him, vis a vis his own male issue. On the 18th of February following, the defendant bank directed one of its officers, to wit, Nilkrishna Paul, to see Mukherjee at his office and hand over to him the shares after receiving from him a pay order for the sum of Rs.

"Subject to provisions of this Act, every advocate whose name is entered in the [State roll] shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to which this Act extends," (i) in all courts including the Supreme Court; Right of advocates to practise. Mukherjee examined the share certificates one after another and when he was about to leave the chamber along with the share certificates and the ranK transfer deeds, Paul raised an objection and asked him not to go away without giving him the pay order.

He died on the 24th August, 1942, without any male issue and left him surviving a widow, Gomathi Ammal, and two daughters, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. This NRI Legal Services principle is even taken note of by the High Court as well in the impugned judgment. Placitum 27, chapter 1, section I of Mitakshara lays down: For a proper determination of the question, it would be convenient first of all to refer to the law laid down in Mitakshara in regard to the father's right of disposition over his self-acquired property and the interest which his sons or grandsons take in the same.

The 1st defendant and her husband were throughout living with her mother. Mukherjee asked for the shares, but Paul refused to make over the share certificates to him unless the pay order was given' Mukherjee then said that he wanted to have a look at the shares and the transfer deeds just to satisfy himself that they were all right. His widow continued the motor service and managed the other properties with the help of the 2nd defendant as her manager and died on the 7th March, 1940.

The doctrine of unjust enrichment is, however, inapplicable to the State. On 14th February, 1946, Bhuiya sent these shares along with the relative transfer deeds to the defendant bank with instructions to deliver over the share certificates and the transfer deeds to the purchaser, against payment of the entire consideration money stated above. Following the dicta in the aforesaid judgments, as noted above, it is clear that notwithstanding this clause, the employees had a right to withdraw the offer during the validity period but not thereafter.

No person can seek to collect the duty from both ends. The matter should be viewed in a more liberal way, regard being always had to the fact that there is no collusion between the debtor and the claimant. The power of the Court is not meant to be exercised for unjustly enriching a person.