Our argument is further fortified by the use of the words ” any part of such statement . An illustration would make the point clear. The assessee contends that the word ” shareholder ” includes even a person who holds a share as a result of a blank transfer, and does not necessarily mean a member of the company, whose name is on the register of members , a person with his name on the register of members, and not to a person holding an equity against such shareholder.
But in order to prove an omission the whole statement has to be so used, as has been done in the present case. If a witness in Court says ‘I saw A running away’ he may be contradicted under section 162 by his statement Permission to go Abroad Law Firm in Chandigarh the police ‘I did not see A running away’. In that case it was laid down that- “to determine the question of punishment, a clear distinction has to be made between those workmen who not only joined in such a strike but also took part in obstructing the loyal workmen from carrying on their work, or took part in violent demonstrations, or acted in defiance of law and order, on the one hand and those workmen who were more or less silent participators in such a strike on the other hand.
I33 Of the Constitution as it does not override or is not intended to override Art. Lawyer in Chandigarh my judgment the real vice of the charging s. In its turn the appellant claimed more than 6% interest on paid-up capital and more than 4% interest on working capital. But by proving an omission what the learned Counsel contradicts is not the statement ‘I saw A running away’ but the statement ‘I stated to the police that I saw’ A running away’. 55(2) Of the Act does not contravene Art.
There is, however, no departure from that general rule when the trust itself is in Bihar and in legislating about that trust, the legislature lays down what should be done to fulfil the objects of the trust and for that purpose puts an end to an old jurisdiction Top Barrister in Chandigarh the sense explained above and creates a new one in its place. “The contrary view is expressed in the following proposition ” An omission may amount to Contradiction if the matter omitted was one which the witness would have been expected to mention and the Sub-Inspector to make note of in the ordinary course.
may be used to contradict. 18(5) if the assessee is a ‘shareholder’, because the benefit of s. 18(5) can go only to the shareholder, i. As section 162 does not allow the witness Permission to go Abroad Advocate in Chandigarh depose ‘ I stated to the police that I saw A running away ‘ it follows that there can be no basis for eliciting the omission. The appellant denied the statement of the respondents that no plant reinstatement reserve over and above the deprecia- tion allowance was necessary in the current year and it urged that the calculations made by the respondents alleged to be in terms of the Labour Appellate Tribunal formula were inaccurate.
The appellant also emphasised that it had already paid to the respondents bonus for three months though the strict working out of the formula would show that there was no available surplus for the relevant year and so the respondents would not be entitled to any bonus at all. ” This proposition, if we may say so, couched in wide phraseology enables the trial Judge to put into the mouth of a witness things which he did not state at an earlier stage and did not intend to say, oil purely hypothetical considerations.
1 Applicable Laws All questions, disputes or differences arising under, out of or in connection with this Contract shall be settled in accordance with laws of India (both procedural and substantive) from time to time in force and to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts in India, subject to the provisions of Clause 1. That doctrine *and the decisions bearing on it we have considered at some length in our decision relating to the Charusila Trust, Civil Appeal No.
n16(2) and credit allowed under s. 3(1) lies not in that it Confines the levy to cases where the entry is for purposes of consumption etc. The doctrine of territorial nexus which arises in this connection has been commented on before us at great length by,-learned counsel for the respondent. We do not wish to repeat what we have said therein. Every detail is expected to be noted. (2) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organized crime or any act preparatory to organized crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.
” It is not said that whole statement may be used. 133 or any other Article of the Constitution relating to appeals to the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the respondent- workmen in this connection relies on Indian General Navigation and Railway Co. ” These observations have however to be read in the context of that case, which was (i) that it was not shown in that case that an employee merely taking part in an illegal strike was liable to be punished with dismissal under the Standing Orders and (ii) that there was no (1)  INSC 85;  S.
in a factory but ‘in equating the premises of a factory with “a local area” entry of goods into which, occasions the tax. The same idea in a slightly different language was expressed by Bhargava and Sahai, JJ. It is true that the legislation of a State is primarily territorial and the general rule is that extra territorium jus dicenti impune non paretur. Another way of expressing this same idea would be to say that whereas under Entry 52 the movement of goods from within the same local.