, the adverse possession of Nagendra, it is to be noted that under the terms of clause 3 of the will of Dwarka Nath the representatives, successors and heirs of his two sons Rajendra and Jogendra were successively to perform the seva in the manner therein mentioned and Nagendra was one of the heirs and NRI legal services representatives Of Rajendra. Considering that the un-amended Section 28 is to apply, it is important to advert to the said Section and see what are its essential ingredients.
5,08,637 was never earmarked or declared as a reserve, but was, on the other hand, earmarked for distribution as dividend on the 28th February and 3rd April and was actually so distributed, it cannot be deemed to be a reserve and added to the paid-up capital in determining the company’s capital under rr. On appeal by the company the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Act wherein the relevant provision, corresponding to Section 19 of the present P.
First, a party should be restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract. 969 of (1) (1920) 24 C. He was no doubt a minor on the 24th November, 1910, when the terms of settlement were arrived at between the parties to the suit No. 3 in as much as facts stated above make it clear that, that apart, the conduct of the Respondents in not providing the certified copies of the proceedings and keeping the Petitioner in the dark when she is the owner of the property and surreptitiously seeking to hold the auction giving a go-bye to the statutory requirements makes it clear that the Respondent No.
It must be pointed out here that if the parties do con- template the possibility of an intervening circumstance which might affect the performance of the contract, but expressly stipulate that the contract would stand despite such circumstances, there can be no case of frustration because the basis of the contract being to demand performance despite the happening of a particular event, it cannot disappear when that event happens.
the partnership was one between two Hindu undivided families and from that date the partnership was one between eight individual members. This being the NRI legal services position, a contention in the extreme form that the doctrine of frustration as recognised in English law does no come at all within the purview of section 56 of the Indian Contract Act cannot be accepted. In our opinion therefore the High Court was right in the conclusion to which it came that there was uncertainty as regards the beneficiaries and there was an absence of any obligation to grant any pension with the result that no NRI legal services and effective trust could be said to have been created and further that the provision of Rs.
2 is malafide and meant to favour of the Respondent No. 2 acted malafide with respect and which act vitiates the entire proceedings. In that case, the issue was considered in the context of the P. 82,490 There was no dispute as to the liability of the company in respect of moneys received from non-members and moneys received on all other accounts. 21,490 (4) Income from entries and forfeits received from the members whose horses did not run in the races durring the season Rs.
As regards the second contention, viz. The Income-tax 0officer held that all the four items mentioned above were receipts from business falling under section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act or, in the alternative, were receipts by an association performing specific services for its members for remuneration definitely related to those NRI legal services within the meaning of section 10(6) of the Act and assessed accordingly.
As Lord Atkinson said in Matthey v. The other brother also died in 1934 leaving four sons, and the son$ of the two brothers thereafter continued the partnership, the members of each branch constituting a separate joint family a,,; amongst themselves. of two disrupted families: started a business in partnership and carried it on for some years. The Appellate Tribunal found that prior to the 14th April. 51,777 (3) Use of private boxes by members Rs.
Thirdly, such absolute restriction may also relate to the limiting of time within which the party may thus enforce its rights. II to the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, for the chargeable accounting period commencing on the 1st April, 1946. In 1932 one of them died and his four sons who were undivided amongst themselves were admitted to the partnership. Secondly, such absolute restriction should be to approach, by way of a usual NRI Legal Services proceeding, the ordinary Tribunals set up by the State.
2,00,000 in the accounting year 1946-47 was not an expenditure or an expenditure for the purposes of the business within the meaning of section 10 (2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act. He held that the company was carrying ing on business and that all the above-mentioned four on business and that all the above- mentioned four items were receipts from business within the meaning of section 10(1), although none of those items fell within section 10(6). (VI) The entire action of the Respondent No.
Held, that as the said sum of Rs. Curling(1), “a person who expressly contracts absolutely to do a thing not naturally impossible is not excused for nonperformance because of being prevented by the act of God or the King’s enemies. In the aforesaid extracted paragraph 54 there is a reference to the judgment of this Court in S. The appeals are without any merit and are dismissed. On the 13th April, 1943, there was a severance of both the families inter se, and the business was carried on by the eight sons who constituted themselves into a partnership with effect from the 14th April.