LexLords NRI Legal Services Leicester By NRI Legal Services LexLords
If a private person is aggrieved by the offence committed against NRI Legal Services him or against any one in whom he NRI Legal Services is interested he can approach the Magistrate and seek permission to conduct the prosecution by himself. Suspension of suits or other NRI legal services proceedings against relief undertakings. International (supra), a three-Judge Bench was adverting in detail to Section 302 CrPC. If the impugned section is regarded NRI Legal Services as imposing restrictions on the purchaser, such restrictions in the circumstances of the case are quite reasonable and permissible under article 19(5) and, in the premises, the _plea of unconstitutionality cannot prevail and must be rejected.
Ali Gulshan [1955] INSC 49; AIR 1955 SC 810 a Constitution Bench of this Court considered vires of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (Act 23 of 1948). These two connected appeals, one by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, and the other by the Century Spinning the second that the proportionate profits of the assessee for three months, between the 1st January, 1946, and the 1st April, 1946, should also be included in the said reserves. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GHULAM HASAN J.
The accused Patel, when questioned about this letter, made the following statement: It was further held that the evidence of experts was corroborated by the statements of the accused recorded under section 342. This Court further proceeded to state that it is open to the court to consider his request and if the court thinks that the cause of justice would be served better by granting such permission the court would generally grant such permission. The position in law as it emerges from these authorities is thus summarised by Lewin on Trusts, Fifteenth fxEdition, page 324 :- "Powers, in the sense in which the term is commonly used, may be distributed into mere powers, and powers in the nature of a trust.
"As from the date specified in the notification under sub- section (1) of Section 3, no suit or other NRI Legal Services proceeding shall be instituted or commenced or, if pending, shall be proceeded with against the industrial undertaking during the period in which it remains a relief undertaking any law, usage, custom, contract, instrument, decree, order, award, settlement or other provisions whatsoever notwithstanding. Higgs(1) and Burrough v. Hence the two appeals. The Income-tax Officer rejected the contention holding that "A 'reserve' represents profits set apart for some specific or general purpose and therefore profits which have not been so set apart cannot be treated as forming part of reserves for the purpose of inclusion in the capital.
The former are powers in the proper sense of the word-that is not imperative, but purely discretionary; powers which the trustee cannot be compelled to execute, and which, on failure of the trustee, cannot be executed vicariously by the court. The latter, on the other hand, are not discretionary, but imperative, have all the nature and substance of a trust, and ought rather, as Lord Hardwicke observed, to be designated by the name of trusts.
In that context, it has been opined that the private person who is permitted to conduct prosecution in the Magistrates Court can engage a counsel to do the needful in the court in his behalf. Thereupon the Tribunal formulated the two questions aforementioned for reference to the High Court under section 66(1) of the Act, read with section 19 of the Business Profits Tax Act of 1947. Chatterjee however urged that the power conferred upon the bank or its officers duly authorised 201 in that behalf was a power in the nature of a trust, that there was a general intention in favour of a class and a particular intention in favour of individuals of a class to be selected by them and even though the particular intention failed from the selection not being made the court could carry into effect the general intention in favour of the class and that therefore the trust was valid.
It was held that every State purpose or Union purpose is a public purpose but there may be acquisition or requisition which is neither for the State nor for the Union and yet it may be for a public purpose; for instance, acquisition for construction of hospital or educational institution by a private individual or institution. Interpreting provisions of the Constitution and Schedule VII thereof, the Court held that requisition of property by the Government of Bombay for accommodation of foreign consulate could be said to be public purpose.
This Court referred in detail to the aforesaid Federal Court decision, and further went on to hold that Section 5 would include execution petitions that were filed to execute decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure. He relied in support of this contention on Brown v. " This order was confirmed on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but was set aside by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. As already stated the High Court decided the first question in favour of the assessee and the second in favour of the department.
