LexLords NRI Legal Services Leeds By NRI Legal Services LexLords

NRI legal services - https://lexlords.com/criminal-appeal/. or (c) be executed by the Central Registrar or any person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, by attachment and sale or sale without attachment of any property of the person or a multi-State co-operative society against whom the decision or order has been made. Although this circumstance may not be decisive, it cannot ,it the same time be overlooked altogether. But that, as we have said, imports the important averment that there as a concluded contract which bound both sides until it was set aside at the option of the defrauded party.

In any case, this does not explain NRI legal services (redirected here) the receipt and the circumstances in which it came to be given apart from the explanation which is contained in the plea NRI legal services (redirected here) of fraud. But apart from that, here again the motif of the theme NRI Legal Services is that there was a concluded contract which fell to the ground because certain conditions, presumably conditions precedent, were not fulfilled. On the first point our attention is drawn to the objects of the company as set forth in its memorandum of associa- 297 tion.

It is also to be noted that the rates of daily admission fee charged on the non-members for ad- mission into the First Enclosure and for the railway tickets are exactly the same as those charged from the members for admission into the Members' Enclosure. The plaintiff is the vendee and the second and third defendants, who appeal, are subsequent purchasers. This is as vague as it can be and is the kind of woolly pleading which a party who is not sure of his facts and case usually makes; no particulars are furnished.

The appellant in that case was an incorporated company. The judgment of the court was delivered by BOSE J. The vendor is the first defendant I whom we will call the Nawab as that is how he has been referred to in the courts below He is now in Pakistan and his property has been taken over by the ,Custodian, U. -This appeal arises out of a vendee's suit for specific performance of a contract of sale dated 7th February, 1942.

Upon hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments cited by the learned counsel, we are of the view that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Chennai Properties (supra) shows the correct position of law and looking at the facts of the case in question, the case on hand is squarely covered by the said judgment It has to be noted as one of the material facts. as if it was sold by the Electricity Board itself to Essar Steel Ltd.

The company issued life policies of two kinds, namely, participating and non-participating. Styles (Surveyor of Taxes)(1). In support of its claim for exemption from tax liability in respect of these three items the company relies on the principles laid down by the House of Lords in the much dis- cussed case of The New York Life Insurance Co. In such circumstances, the Electricity Board (R-1) cannot claim that by reasons of its making payment for the Annual Fixed Charges up to the allocated capacity, it was always obligatory on the part of the EPL to supply power to the extent of 58% to the Electricity Board and that since EPL has sold a part of Electricity Boards share in the power generated by the EPL to its sister concern, EPL is liable to compensate the Electricity Board for the same by treating such power which sold by EPL to Essar Steel Ltd.

[para 32] In Benjamin's Sale of Goods (3rd Edn. nWe are of the view that all transfers, deliveries and supplies of goods referred to in clauses (a) to (f) of clause (29-A) of Article 366 of the Constitution are subject to the restrictions and conditions mentioned in clause (1), clause (2) and sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of Article 286 of the Constitution and the transfers and deliveries that take place under sub- clauses (b), (c) and (d) of clause (29-A) of Article 366 of the Constitution are subject to an additional restriction mentioned in sub- clause (b) of Article 286(3) of the Constitution.

82,490 (the fourth item mentioned above) from the horse racing business carried on by it with its members within the meaning of section 10(1) of the Act. Finally, it has been declared by the High Court by the order under appeal-and it is now accepted by the company-that the company derived the sum of Rs. It appears that the objects of the company are, inter alia, to carry on the business of a Race Course company in all its branches and to carry on the business of Hotel Keepers, tavern keepers, licensed victuallers and refreshment purveyors.

Then we have the fact that so far as non-members are concerned the company does carry on a horse racing business and the moneys it realises from nonmembers for admission into the First and Second Enclosures to watch the races from an unreserved seat therein and for the use of the totalisator and other amenities are income, profits or gains of that business. 82,490 received from members represents, as held by the High Court, a part of the income of the horse racing business, why are not the first three items of receipts also parts of the income, profits or gains of that very business?

On what principle or authority are those three items to be excluded from the computation of the total business, income of the company?