Therein the Court has examined the definition of dealer under Section 2(11) of the said Act and observed that every person is not a dealer but only those persons who carry on the business by buying or selling goods are regarded as dealers. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. A Division Bench of the High Court analogously heard the Reference and Jail Criminal appeals and disposed of the same on 27. DSM Group of Industries [(2005) 1 SCC 657] (SCC para 26); Tisco v. Normally and in the ordinary course an offence is committed only once.
He failed to remember as to whether the testator, Mr. 2010 by a learned Single Judge. That writ petition was allowed on 01. 12711 of 1992 Top Barrister in Chandigarh the High Court. It is so stated Proclaimed Offender Advocate in Chandigarh Rule 4 itself. This judgment shall govern both the matters which involve common issues of facts and Law Firm in Chandigarh High Court. We would like to reproduce this Rule, as it originally stood, in its entirety: So, at this stage, Rule 9 comes into play, with which we are concerned in the present case. A-1 which he claimed had been drafted by him.
Morgardshammar India Ltd. The High Court held that the accusation against each of the appellants had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Kumar deposed on oath that he was enrolled as a lawyer in or about 1971 and used to assist his father who was a deed writer in Urdu language. It lays down that Counsel in Chandigarh High Court determining the transactional value, cost of certain services is to be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, as mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of sub- rule (1) of Rule 9.
who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods on behalf of any principal, or through whom the goods are bought, sold, supplied or distributed; or an auctioneer, or any other mercantile agent by whatever name called, . Be that as it may, AW 1 Mr. State of Kerala [(2007) 2 SCC 725] and Reiz Electrocontrols (P) Ltd. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court in recording the conviction of the appellants was sustained. In the said case, the provisions of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 were examined to ascertain whether the ancillary activity of publication and sale of books by Saibaba Trust amounted to business under the said Act, when the dominant activity of the said Trust was non-profit dissemination of message of Saibaba.
Appellants appeal before the Division Bench was dismissed by the impugned order. Sai Publication Fund, (2002) 4 SCC 57 and submitted that where the main activity is not a business then any incidental or ancillary transaction would only amount to business if an independent intention to carry on business in the incidental or ancillary transaction is established. He also could not recall as to whether he was present when the testator had signed the Will.
[(1996) 1 SCC 108]; Novopan India Ltd. CCE [(2006) 6 SCC 213]. ” Mahavir Prasad has sought permission to file the Special Leave Petition against judgment of learned Single Judge as well as of Division Bench on the ground that he is one amongst the selected candidates and has a better claim for appointment than respondent ” Dalbir Singh and hence order should be passed for appointing him in place of Khub Ram. Shri Giri has relied upon the decision of this Court in CST v.
Therefore, the dictum of this Court in the said decision would also not be applicable in the instant case. Thus, under the said Act, from the very definition of dealer, it follows that a person would not be a dealer in respect of the goods sold or purchased by him unless he carries on the business of buying and selling such goods. He testified to have seen the Will Ex. In the instant case, the definition of dealer under Section 2(viii) is wide and specifically includes persons who have effected sale or transfer of goods irrespective of the said sale or transfer being in course of business or not.
The State of Karnataka should now ensure that the prosecution is duly represented by an authorized Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24(1) of the Code. The witness even failed to remember whether the Will had been given to him by his father or to the testator. Nathu Ram Singh had come to his father in his presence or that his father had given him instructions to write the Will. It deals with “cost of services”. The witness stated that he used to come to Tis Hazari Court for attending his cases.
However, if the State of Karnataka decides to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24(8) of the Code, it must do so only in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. Not only the appointment of Khub Ram and one more person was quashed but a direction was also issued to appoint writ petitioner ” Dalbir Singh from a retrospective date with all consequential benefits. But we may have offences which can be committed from day to day and it is offences falling in this latter category that are described as continuing offences.
State of Jharkhand [(2005) 4 SCC 272] (SCC paras 42 to 45); State Level Committee v.