Facts About NRI Legal Services Revealed

However, these evidences fail to hold any veracity as it seems unnatural and the hostility of these witnesses was specifically made out in the cross-examination. PW 46, PW47 and PW48 did specify the existence of conspiracy, but in their cross-examination, their conduct was seriously doubted. Now indisputably the goods consigned to the Central Government or to Government of any State must obviously have a priority over what we may loosely describe as private transporters, because it is well-settled that the Central or the State Government is in a class by itself.

The next aspect for our consideration is the alleged conspiracy. Soon after the advent of the Constitution, to arm the Central Government with requisite power to direct the railway administration to give special facilities for or preference to the transport of any such goods or class of goods consigned to the Central Government or to the Government of any State or such other goods or class of goods as may be specified in the order, Section 27-A was introduced in the Act which enabled it by a general or special order to direct the railway administration to grant special facilities for or preference to the transport of goods.

Proof of conspiracy is strictly conditional upon there being reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons had conspired together to commit an offence. They did not make any statement to the police to this effect and it was admitted by PW48 that the fact of conspiracy was told to him by PW46 three months prior to the incident. This view is founded on the assumption that all activities of the State are in public interest in the sense that they are either undertaken on behalf of the public or that the loss or gain arising from them falls upon the public.

, while allowing it to exercise its powers as a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act and proceed with the sale of the secured assets. 3646 of 2011 preferred by Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited (for brevity, ˜Pegasus), which has been heard as the lead matter, arises out of a Division Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 15. In the present case, the cultivators of the respondents were examined to prove that the accused respondents had prior plans to leave their place of cultivation.

Apart from the Courts of Small Causes and Courts established under other enactments, the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 makes provision for three classes of Civil Courts, namely- (1) the Court of the District Judge, (2) the Court of the Additional Judge, and (3) the Court of the Subordinate Judge. On the application of the Commissioner of Income Tax under s. Other witnesses were produced to testify the meeting in which the conspiracy was planned, but PW17 and PW23 did not state specifically as to what conspiracy was being hatched.

26-A of the Income Tax Act. Since the judgment of Division Bench disallowed the appeal of Haryana State Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation (for brevity ˜HSIIDC) against the order of Company Judge allowing Pegasus to stay outside the winding up proceeding of the respondent Haryana Concast Limited, HSIIDC is also before this Court through SLP (C) No. But PW48 kept quiet even though the deceased was his uncle. After noticing several earlier judgments of this Court, this Court concluded:- Thus the unanimous view of all courts till 1996 was that Section 104(1) CPC specifically saved letters patent appeals and the bar under Section 104(2) did not apply to letters patent appeals.

On appeal to the Supreme Court: Pegasus Advocates; navigate to this website Advocates [on bing] , Assets Reconstruction Pvt. The Income-Tax Officer rejected the application on the ground that Dulichand Lakshminarayan, constituted under the deed dated 17th February 1947, consisted of three firms, one Hindu undivided family business and one individual and that a firm or a Hindu undivided family could not as such enter into a partnership with other firms or individual, 155 The assessee's appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but it succeeded before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal who directed registration of the firm.

In order to understand the central issue Advocates (on bing) involved in each of the matters, it may be Advocates - on bing, useful to notice that Civil Appeal No. The express provision need not refer to or use the words letters patent but if on a reading of the provision it is clear that all further appeals are barred then even a letters patent appeal would be barred. 66(1) of the Income Tax Act the High Court held that on the facts of the case the assessee was not entitled to registration under s.

The view has been that a letters patent appeal cannot be ousted by implication but the right of an appeal under the Letters Patent can be taken away by an express provision in an appropriate legislation. [at para 22] This Court then went on to hold: The question which arose before this Court was whether Letters Patent Appeals, which were referred to in any other law for the time being in force, and therefore outside Section 104(1), could be said to be governed by Section 104(2) which provided that no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this Section.

But as pointed out by the High Court, there exists no cogent and positive evidence to prove the conspiracy. 2009 whereby the Division Bench upheld the judgment of Company Court and approved of certain fetters placed upon M/s. Such a general or special order can be issued by the Central Government if in its opinion it is necessary in the public interest to do so. To meet the challenge of Article 19(1)(g) the Central Government was armed with power to accord priority in transport of goods in larger public interest.