The appellant/petitioners have not placed any material on the record of the case to demonstrate, that police personnel from the police department were assigned duties within the barracks of Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh. 1990 in a Company petition. It is also not in dispute that the name of the respondent Darjeeling Dooars Plantations (Tea) Ltd. Top Lawyer in Chandigarh the writ petition, interim orders were passed by the High Court directing Regional Dy. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the pleadings extracted hereinabove, and having perused the annexures A/1 and A/2 referred to in the above pleadings, we are satisfied that the contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioners is wholly misconceived.
1 filed the writ petition in the High Court, as mentioned above, under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of CITES’ letter dated 8. After the aforesaid show cause notice was issued by the Custom Authorities, respondent no. In our considered view, within the jail premises, only the jail staff can be permitted to function. Director, CITES heard respondent no. and the Karala Valley Tea Company were amalgamated and all the properties, rights and interest stood transferred to the respondent Darjeeling Dooars Plantations (Tea) Ltd.
In such blank transfers, the name of the transferor is entered, and the transfer deed signed by the transferor is handed over with the share scrip to the trans- feree, who, if he so chooses, completes the transfer by entering his name and then applying to the company to register his name in place of the previous holder of the share. 124 of the Customs Act. nThe same view was expressed by the Indian Courts in cases decided after the enactment of the Contract Act. 42 of 2010) was also holding the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail, whilst Paramjit Singh Rana (petitioner in Transferred Case (C) No.
, in 1875, stated a principle which is still valid for the Courts, when he said: ‘-You have this paramount public policy to consider, that you are not lightly to interfere with the freedom of contract ‘; and it is in reconciling freedom of contract with other public interests which are regarded as of not less importance that the difficulty in these cases arises. At the same juncture, Dalbir Singh Sandhu (petitioner in Transferred Case (C) No. Indisputably, during the subsistence of the lease, the respondent Darjeeling Dooars Plantations (Tea) Ltd.
2002 as well as show cause notice issued by the Customs Authorities under Sec. was mutated by the order of the Collector dated 28. by the order passed by the Calcutta High Court on 31. 1 and refusing the permission for clearance of the item Barrister in Chandigarh question. And in case of lapses within the jail premises, it is the jail staff alone which is responsible. Of course, between the transferor and the transferee, certain equities arise even on the execution and handing over of ‘a blank transfer’, and among these equities is the right of the transferee to claim the dividend declared and paid to the transferor who is treated as a trustee on behalf of the transferee.
Based on the factual position brought to our notice from the pleadings and annexures referred to above, it is not possible for us to accept the submission advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioners, that the action initiated against the appellant/petitioners can be vitiated for the reasons of malice in fact or malice in law. 2002 as the show cause notice and pass order after hearing respondent no. There is nothing wrong about the same.
I religious trust’ means any express or constructive trust created or existing for any purpose recognised by Hindu Law to be religious, pious or charitable, but shall not include a trust created 568 according to the Sikh religion or purely for the benefit of the Sikh community and a private endowment created for the worship of a family idol in which the public are not interested ; The expressions ” religious trust ” and ” trust property ” are defined in the following way :- “Section 2 (1).
Such police personnel would be oblivious of the activities within the four walls of the jail itself. The application for registration under S. Police personnel may be posted outside the jail premises, for obvious reasons. The company recognises no person except one whose name is on the register of members, upon whom alone calls for unpaid capital can be made and to whom only the dividend declared by the company is legally payable.
26A for the assessment years 1945-46 and 1946-47 was made on August 24, 1949. 43 of 2010) were working as Head Warder and Warder respectively. 1 and passed the orders dated 17. 41 of 2010) was posted as Assistant Superintendent of Jail, Nishan Singh (petitioner in Transferred Case (C) No. These equities, however, do not touch the company, and no claim by the transferee whose name is not in the register of members can be made against the company, if the tranferor retains the money in his own hands and fails to pay it to him nThe position of a shareholder who gets dividend when his name stands in the register of members of the company causes no difficulty whatever.
Pursuant to this direction the Dy. Director CITES to treat the communication dated 8. 26A of the Act for the assessment year 1949-1950 was made thereafter to the Income-tax Officer. But transfers of shares are common, and they take place either by a fully executed document such as was contemplated by Regulation 18 of Table A of the Indian Companies Act 1913, or by what are known as blank transfers’. The presence of police personnel to extend external support to a jail facility is understandable.
44 of 2010) and Inder Singh (petitioner in Transferred Case (C) No. The presence of police personnel within the administrative framework of a jail, is out of the question. 2003, thereby rejecting the request of respondent no. 389 the assessee firm was verbally constituted in 81 642 June, 1944, and a memorandum of partnership was executed Best Counsels in Chandigarh June 1948. The reason for that decision is given at page 445 An agent who paid the amount of betting lost by him was allowed to recover the same from his principal in Pringle v.