NRI legal services
. As regards the jewels mentioned in the plaint, it was said that only a few of them existed and they belonged exclusively to his wife the defendant No. it was a suit by the holder or manager of the Math to recover possession of Math property which was improperly alienated by his predecessor on the ground that the defendant became a trespasser as soon as the previous Mahant died and the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession on proof of his title.
(See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G. I in his written statement traversed all these allegations of the plaintiff and denied that there was any joint family property to which the plaintiff could lay a claim. But the rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights or NRI Legal Services
to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. answered it in the negative, as a result of which the judgment of Satyanarayana Rao J. Kuberdas received money and lands from his followers and disciples and with this fund he built a temple at Sarsa.
Ordinarily a company will be a, "company, the directors whereof have a controlling interest therein" for the purposes of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, only if the directors thereof hold, and are entered in the share register as holders of, a majority of the vote-carrying shares of the company. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GHULAM HASAN J.
The asset after it has been brought into the business appreciates or depreciates in value in accordance with the fluctuations of the market and that appreciated or depreciated asset continues to be a part of the stock-in- trade of the business until it is realised or withdrawn. The case of the plaintiffs, in substance, was that one Kuberdas, who was a religious teacher and a holy man rounded a cult known as Kaivalya or Karunasagar Panth, the principal tenet of which is that the realization of the Infinite is possible only through the medium of a Guru or spiritual preceptor.
132 of 1952 which relates to 1943- 1944 is filed by the assessee, and, is dealt with separately. answered it in the affirmative, while Viswanatha Sastri J. Kuberdas by will appointed his principal disciple Narayandas to succeed him on the Gadi and Narayandas built another and a bigger temple wherein he installed an image of Kuberdas, with the images of two staff bearers on two sides. ) It is not necessary that an express provision be made to make a statute retrospective and the presumption against retrospectivity may be rebutted by necessary implication especially in a case where the new law is made to cure an acknowledged evil for the benefit of the community as a whole (ibid.
So far as the business is concerned the asset ceases to be a part of the stock-in- trade whether it is realised or is withdrawn from the stock- in-trade. So far the law seems to be fairly settled and there is no room for controversy. Is there any difference in the position when instead of the asset being realised is withdrawn from the stock- 231 in-trade of the business ? It is not necessary that they must have a beneficial interest in such shares, but the mere fact that one of the directors of the company has been authorised by another company which held a majority of shares in the former company, to vote on its behalf in respect of the shares held by it, will not make the former company a director controlled company.
(2)A tribunal shall consist of such number of independent members as the appropriate Government may think fit to appoint, and where the tribunal consists of two or more members, one of them NRI Legal Services shall be appointed as the
chairman thereof . The other items of immovable property as well as the cash, furniture and utensils were his own acquisitions in which the sons had no interest whatsoever. -These three appeals arise from the judgment and order of the Madras High Court dated 2nd February, 1950, delivered on a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal'), whereby the High Court answered the first referred question in, the negative, and as regards the second question, Satyanarayana Rao J.
His case was that items I and 2 of Schedule B lands as well as the house property were the self-acquired properties of his father and he got them under a will executed by the latter as early as in the year 1912. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only"nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis"a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past.
Does it remain self-acquired property in his (1) Vide Muddun, v. The controversy arises, however, on the question as to what kind of interest a son would take in the self-acquired property of his father which he receives by way of gift or testamentary bequest from him, vis a vis his own male issue. They relate to the assessment for 1942-1943 and are filed by the Commissioner of Income- tax, while Appeal No.