LexLords NRI Legal Services Harrow By NRI Legal Services LexLords
NRI legal services https://lexlords.com/nri-legal-services-in-canada/. , constituted of eight partners then there could be no occasion for reciting that "the firm was reconstituted as constituted of eight partners". The first respondent along with her husband approached the Bank with a request to return the excess amount which the Bank secured by way of sale of the property. 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 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.
23843 of 2012, SLP (C) No. But that would depend upon whether his proposal regarding a form of warranty to which he was not entitled was a mere proposal regarding the form of the sale deed or was a refusal to perform without it. 1 along with her husband filed W. 32911 of 2011 in the High Court of Kerala seeking a Mandamus to the Bank to return the excess sale amount in respect of the property along with the rent collected by the Bank for the property from 08.
As the Bank did not respond favourably, respondent No. 24269 of 2012 and SLP (C) No. 14th April, 1943, the said firm was reconstituted as constituted of eight partners. 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. Both the fact situation and the ratio of this judgment are far removed from the facts in the present case inasmuch as it is nobodys case that without the packing material manufactured tea cannot be said to exist as a finished product, it being moveable property and therefore goods under the Karnataka Entry Tax Act.
In our opinion, therefore, the answer given by the High Court to the referred question was correct. The Bank sold the said property in 2007 by inviting tenders for Rs. By way of order dated 11. 1985, the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, acquitted the appellant-Brij Lal by accepting the plea of self- defence raised by him by invoking the second exception under Section 300, IPC. This construction of those clauses is clearly inconsistent with the fifth recital which says that on and from the 1st Baisak, 1350 B.
It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act is a limited one. It is from 1944-45 that eight partners are being shown. This Court in the case of Cholan Roadways (Supra) observed thus: 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) NRI Legal Services of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2016, this Court has de-tagged the appeals arising out of SLP (C) No.
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. It was quantified at Rs. If the firm was before 1st Baisak, 1350 B. 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.
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. The scope of the present appeals is only restricted to deciding the validity of the acquisition of land and the compensation awarded thereafter in favour of the land losers.
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 NRI legal services, navigate to this web-site, 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 and between the separated male members of the two families. This judgment is also therefore of no avail to the appellant. 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.
Vide his judgment dated 22. That jurisdiction cannot be equated with that of the NRI legal services (navigate to this web-site) jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. They also sought for payment of rent that the Bank earned by letting out the property for the period 08. 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.
No question of repudiation or refusal to perform was raised in the pleadings nor is (1) I. 1881-1911 of 2013, as they deal with the constitutional validity of the Singur Act, 2011.
