After narrating these preliminaries of the matters, we advert to the facts and events of the cases. If the entries in the books of account were genuine and the balance in Rokar and the balance in Almirah on January 12, 1946, aggregated to Rs. 10,000 at a time 316 consisted of high denomination notes, there was no basis for the conclusion that the appellant had satisfactorily explained the possession of Rs. It is necessary to refer to the (1) [1951] 2 K.

The legality of the alleged gift deed executed in favour of the second defendant by the deceased-first defendant in respect of the schedule ˜B property has been further examined by us and the same is hit by Section 52 of the of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Jagan Singh v. The assessee appealed, in turn, to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It is necessary to refer here to the decision Advocates in Supreme Court of India Wrottesley v.

That is why the framers of the Act have required the appropriate Government to grant prior approval of any housing scheme presented by any cooperative society before the lands are acquired treating such requirement and acquisition for public purpose. This circumstance alone goes a long way to support the contention of the writ Petitioners that their lands have not been acquired Advocate in Supreme Court of India the normal course or for any public purpose.

34 of the Act had no retrospective effect, and that the assessment completed on February 26, 1951 was invalid, inasmuch as it was completed four years after. His appeal raised some other points which it is unnecessary to mention. In the appeal filed by the respondent against this preliminary decree he did not challenge the decision of the trial court that he had no jurisdiction to deal with immoveable properties out of British India. This itself is enough to vitiate the whole acquisition proceeding and render the same invalid.

In spite of the repeated query, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Society could not point out or produce any order of the State Government under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act granting prior approval and prescribing conditions and restrictions in respect of the use of the lands which were to be acquired for a public purpose. , that the amount of Rs. 59,026 could not and should not have been included in his income, that the amended S. It is incumbent on the part of the appropriate Government while granting approval to examine different aspects of the matter so that it may serve the public interest and not the interest of few who can as well afford to acquire such lands by negotiation in open market.

His contentions were three, viz. 3,10,681-13-9 and if it was not improbable that a fairly good portion of the very large sums received by the appellant from time to time, say in excess of Rs. The relevant paras of the aforesaid decision read thus: It has been further held by this Court that it would be plainly impossible that any action or suit could be brought to a successful termination if alienations pendente lite were permitted to prevail.

Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal rejected his contentions, but the Tribunal on being moved by him, raised and referred two questions of law under s. Regent Street Florida Restaurant (1) on which learned counsel for the respondent workmen has placed great reliance. Either the Tribunal did not apply its mind to the situation or it, arrived at the conclusion it did merely by applying the rule of thumb in which event the finding of fact reached by it was such as could not reasonably be entertained or the fact found were such as no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant Law firms in Supreme Cour of Indiat could have found, or the Tribunal in arriving at its findings was influenced by irrelevant considerations or indulged in conjectures, surmises or suspicions in which event also its finding could not be sustained.

66(1) of the Act to the High Court of Judicature, Bombay, for its decision. 1,50,000 in the high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each leaving the possession of the balance of 141 high denomination notes of Rs. There is no restriction or bar on the part of the appellant Society on carving out the size of the plots or the manner of allotment or in respect of construction over the same. The power under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act has been exercised for extraneous consideration and at the instance of the persons who had no role in the decision-making process - whether the acquisition of the lands in question shall be for a public purpose.

According to us, the State Government has not granted the prior approval in terms of Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act to the housing scheme in question. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the facts appearing in the writ petition of Gajraj as that was the lead case before the High Supreme Court of India Advocate as well. the end of the relevant assessment year. 1,000 each unexplained. Dhanwanti[3], wherein this Court has laid down the legal principle that under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the ˜lis continues so long as a final decree or order has not been obtained from the Court and a complete satisfaction thereof has not been rendered to the aggrieved party contesting the civil suit.