, investigations conducted under the Criminal Procedure Code, and therefore prima focie did not apply to the investigations conducted by the Bombay City Police prior to the 1st August, 1951, in which case section 63 of the City of Bombay Police Act IV of 1902 was applicable. The constitution of the Benches was, however, different. They applied to investigations “under this chapter”, i. n914 The provisions of section 162 applied to investigations conducted by the Bombay City Police from and after the 1st August, 1951.
In the first appeal one of the Judges of that Bench expressly differed from the majority decision and another learned Judge did not accept the majority decision on many points. nChatterjee is that Advocate in Chandigarh any event his client is a stranger who has bona fide purchased the property for good consideration after making due enquiries and on proper legal advice and be cannot therefore be affected by any infirmity of title by reason of the absence of legal necessity.
It does not appear that either of the two majority Judges of the High Court adverted to either of these aspects of the matter, namely, service of notice to all churches and competency of the persons who issued the notice of the Karingasseri meeting and in any case did not come to a definite finding on that question. The two appeals were, as a matter of fact, heard one after the other and judgments were reserved in both of them. In our opinion the contention formulated in this form really involves a misconception of the legal position of an alienee of a Hindu widow’s property.
If there is no legal ‘necessity, the transferee gets only the widow’s estate which is not even an (1) 46 I. This, in our opinion, is certainly an error apparent on the face of the. nBut did all members attend, even if the defendants’ party who had adopted Ex. It was however contended on behalf of the appellants that this section was a procedural one, that nobody had a vested right in any course of procedure, that alterations in procedure were to be retrospective unless there was some good reason against it or unless that construction be textually ‘inadmissible [vide Banwars’ Gope v.
For legal necessity she can convey to another an absolute title to the property vested in her. Both these contentions are untenable. From very early times the Hindu widow’s estate has been described as qualified proprietorship with powers of alienation only when there is justifying necessity, and the restrictions on the powers of alienation are inseparable from her estate (2). Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factory(1) commenced.
It was contended on the other hand by the learned Attorney-General for the respondents that section 167(2) of the Bombay Police Act XXII of 1951 saved by clause (b) thereof any right, privilege, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred before such date and by clause (d) thereof any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment and that therefore the investigation which had been made by the police under the provisions of the City of Bombay Police Act IV of 1902 was saved and did not come within the ban of section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The interest of a Hindu widow in the pro- perties inherited by her bears no analogy or resemblance to what may be described as an equitable estate in English law and which cannot be followed in the hands of a bonafide purchaser for value without notice. 1 of 2011 and 5 of 2013 of ITBP ensuring that only 600 candidates or such number of candidates as could easily be managed or taken care of be called in one cycle on a particular day. For compliance in that behalf, a copy of this Order be sent by the Registry to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs.
Incometax Commissioner, Delhi(1)], that the ban under section 162 was operative when evidence Lawyers in Chandigarh regard to the test identification parades was led before the learned Sessions Judge and that therefore all evidence in regard to these test identification parades whether they had been held before or after the 1 st August, 195 1, was inadmissible. Emperor(1) and Delhi Cloth Mills v. Section 167(2)could only apply to those rights, privileges, obligations or’ liabilities already acquired, accrued or incurred under the City of Bombay Police Act IV of 1902 before the date of its repeal 121, 705 fled it is of no importance on the question of validity that the liability imposed is, or may be, disproportionate to the territorial connection.
Further, all Central Police Organisations must issue guidelines or Standing Order akin to Standing Orders Nos. 753 But I am unable to think that the main purpose underlying each and every one of the provisions of article 286 was to prevent Lawyer Chandigarh the continuance of preexisting chaotic conditions of multiple taxation by virtue of the nexus theory. The majority judgments, Advocate Chandigarh therefore, are defective on the face of them in that they did not effectively deal with and determine an important issue in the case on which depends the title of the plaintiffs and the maintainability of the suit.
(A statement showing the definition of ” sale” under each of the Sales-Tax Acts in operation just prior to the Constitution is appended-as Appendix I-for reference). I cannot help feeling that a wholly wrong impression of the pre- existing state of law in this respect has been created by overlooking that the existence of goods in a particular State has been taken as a taxing point only if that existence was at the crucial moment of transfer of ownership.