Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu – http://www.indiafinder.in/detail/simranjeet-law-associates-5056. While examining whether non-supply of a document would prejudice a detenu, the Court has to examine whether the detenu would be deprived of making an effective representation in the absence of a document. in delivering his judgment laid emphasis on the point that after the business of the company had dwindled, it partitioned part of the land from the rest and sublet it by installing a heating apparatus for the sub-lessee.
In this situation it was observed that in that case they were dealing with part of the property of the company which had come redundant and was sublet purely to produce income–a transaction. The case of Jatindra Nath Gupta v. No question arises here as to the respondent’s title to the land which apparently has been perfected by lapse of time. On the second point, the learned Judges of the High Court held that the Act was validly extended to the district of Darjeeling and was in force in that area on the date of the occurrence, viz.
Unfortunately for the respond- ent, the express agreement was unenforceable owing to non- observance of the prescribed statutory formalities, though it was acted upon by both sides. For this contravention of the provisions of clause 24 (1) of the Cotton Textiles Control Order, 1948, he was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Darjeeling under section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (Act XXIV) of 1946 (herein after referred to as the Essential Supplies Act), and sentenced Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu to six months’ rigor- ous imprisonment.
2 10 term of art having a defined or technical meaning and that it was impossible to say that the commissioners had erred in law in coming to the conclusion that the transaction result- ed in an investment. The acquittal of the appellant 130 was set aside, the order of conviction passed by the Magistrate was restored, and the appellant was sentenced to four months’ rigorous imprisonment. It was found that war conditions had reduced the company’s business to very small proportions and they cut their loss by going out of business in respect of the major part of their land and put it out of their power for 14 years to resume business there.
–The sole controversy in this appeal centres round the point as to whether or not excess profits tax is payable Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu on the sum Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu of Rs. But documents which are merely referred to for the purpose of narration of facts in that sense cannot be termed to be documents without the supply of which the detenu is prejudiced. On appeal to the Sessions Judge, the appellant was acquitted on two grounds, viz. Thus understood, the ground urged by the petitioner to challenge the detention of her son Murugan S/o.
The initial detention order, upon confirmation thereof, would remain in force for a period of 12 months. The conduct of the parties was referable to the express agreement evidenced by the Government Resolution of 19th December, 1865, to make a grant of the land free of rent (which, in such context, means and includes revenue). Esakkimuthu Thevar is devoid of merit. Primarily, the copies which form the ground for detention are to be supplied and non- supply thereof would prejudice the detenu.
The proposal for confirmation of detention order was considered by the Appropriate Authority (Deputy Secretary to the Government dated 15th December, 2015 read with Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu the order passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government dated 29th February, 2016). 20,005 received by the respondent from Messrs Parakh that all the assets of the respondent including the dyeing plant were the assets of the business, that whatever income was derived by the use of these assets including the income that an asset fetched by its being let out was the business income of the assessee, and that there was no warrant 5 in law for the proposition that a commercial asset which yields income must be used as an asset by the respondent himself before its income becomes chargeable to tax.
The appellant, Joylal Agarwala, who was a salesman in a retail shop in Pulbazar in the district of Darjeeling in the State of West Bengal, was charged with having sold a piece of textile cloth at a price in excess of the controlled price. It was pointed out that the question whether a particular source of income was income or not must be decided, as it could be, according to ordinary commonsense principles. That makes it amply clear that the detention period would continue up to 12 months.
There is here no question of delegation at all, much less delegation of any legislative power. There was no lying by and letting another run into a trap [per Cotton L. But it is clear that no right of exemption has been established either on the basis of express or implied (1) (1878) 6 I. The Province of Bihar and Others(1) has no application here. On appeal to the High Court by the State of West Bengal, the point about the absence of sanction under clause 36 of the Control Order was given up by the present appellant as its necessity had been abolished by a later Notification of the Central Government.
quite apart from the ordinary business activities of the company. No question, therefore, of any implied contract could arise. In the case now before us, the Legislature has itself applied its mind and has fixed the duration of the Act, but has left the machin- ery to reach the maximum period by instalments to be worked out in a particular manner. , (1) that no sanction was previously obtained for the prosecution as required by clause 36 of the Cotton Textiles Control Order, and (2) that the Essential Supplies Act was not in force in the district of Darjeeling on the date of the occurrence.
The Judgment of the Court was deliv- ered by MAHAJAN J.