Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3341 to 3360 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AT held that civil courts and the tribunal lack jurisdiction to determine cultivation rights, which fall exclusively within the revenue courts' purview. The appellants had transferred cultivation rights via sub-leases to third parties, thereby forfeiting any right to repossess those rights. Additionally, as the appellants were not recorded owners in revenue records, they possessed no authority to evict the sub-lessees for alleged breaches under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956. Consequently, the appellants lacked locus standi to challenge the sub-lessees' rights. The appeals were dismissed on these grounds.
The AT held that civil courts and the tribunal lack jurisdiction to determine cultivation rights, which fall exclusively within the revenue courts' purview. The appellants had transferred cultivation rights via sub-leases to third parties, thereby forfeiting any right to repossess those rights. Additionally, as the appellants were not recorded owners in revenue records, they possessed no authority to evict the sub-lessees for alleged breaches under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956. Consequently, the appellants lacked locus standi to challenge the sub-lessees' rights. The appeals were dismissed on these grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
