LexLords NRI Legal Services NJ By NRI Legal Services LexLords
On November 25, 1925, the present plaintiff Gurusidhwaswami became the head of the Math. It is the propriety of this decision that has been challenged before us in this appeal. On April 8, 1910, Bharamappa 32 238 made a gift of the entire premises consisting of plots 1(a) and 1(b) to the Dakshina Maharashtra Digambar Jain Sabha, a registered body, for the purpose of building a school upon it for the education of Jain students.
The judgment of the High Court is dated the 26th of November, 1942. On 3rd December, 1943, the plaintiff appellant commenced the present suit against the respondent Jain Sabha claiming khas possession of the land gifted in its favour by Bharamappa, alleging that as the original permanent lease was not binding on the Math for not being supported by NRI legal services necessity, the defendant could not acquire any title by grant from the successor of the lessee.
The result was that the plaintiffs suit was dismissed` Thereupon the plaintiff took an appeal to the High Court of Bombay and the learned Judges, who heard the appeal, concurred in the decision of the court below and dismissed the appeal and the suit. nAs the statute creates an offence and imposes a penalty of fine and imprisonment, the words of the section must be strictly construed in favour of the subject. 23 in the suit, but under a wrong name.
On August 27, 1932, the plaintiff instituted a suit, being Suit No. 50 per annum for the first six years and thereafter at the rate of Rs. This Court in the case of Cholan Roadways (Supra) observed thus: That jurisdiction cannot be equated with that of the jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. On June 19,1892, Pradhanappa sold a portion of the lease hold property, which is described in Schedule 1(b) to the plaint, to a person named Bharamappa.
On August 31, 1920, Gangadhar Swami died and for some time after his death the affairs of the Math were in the hands of a committee of management. We are not concerned so much with what might possibly have been intend- ed as with what has been actually said in and by the language employed I am therefore definitely of the opinion that even in the case of withdrawal as in the case of the realisation of the asset the business is entitled to credit in the goods account the market value of the asset as at the date of its withdrawal whatever be the method adopted 234 by it for valuation of its stock-in-trade on hand at the close of a year of account.
The defendant Sabha resisted the suit and the two material questions round which the controversy centred were: (1) whether the original permanent lease was supported by NRI legal services - go to this web-site - necessity, and even if it was not, (2) whether the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation under article 134-B of the Indian Limitation Act? The second part of the section does not allow for any discretion but it binds and compels the court to take any of the aforementioned two steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case.
The trial judge decided the first point in favour of the plaintiff, but on the question of limitation the 239 decision was adverse to him. The moot question is about the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) whilst considering an application for approval of order of punishment under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Jain Sabha was impleaded as defendant No. The suit was dismissed by the trial judge but on appeal by the plaintiff to the High Court of Bombay, the trial court's judgment was reversed and the plaintiff's claim for khas possession was allowed in respect of the suit land against all the defendants with the exception of defendant No.
80 of 1932, against the heirs and successors of Bharamappa for recovery of possession of the land comprised in the permanent lease on the allegation that there being no NRI legal services necessity for granting the lease, the alienation was not binding on the Math and became void on the death of the last Mahant. [Emphasis added] The aforesaid passages make it abundantly clear about the broad applicability of the provision and the role of the court in two distinct situations.
In 1897 Gurusidhwaswami died and was succeeded by his disciple Gangadhar Swami who did not repudiate the permanent lease granted by his predecessor and went on accepting rents from the lessee in the same way as before. However, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary power should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection and consistently with the provisions of the Code.
23 who was dismissed from the suit on the ground of misdescription. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act is a limited one. 34, in favour of one Pradhanappa and the rent agreed to be paid by the lessee was Rs. In April, 1905, another part of the land, which is described in Schedule 1(a) to the plaint, was put up for sale in execution of a decree against Pradhanappa's heirs and it was purchased by one Kadayya, and Kadayya in his turn sold the same to Bharamappa who had already purchased Schedule 1(b) plot by private purchase.
