Having stated the aforesaid, ordinarily we would have proceeded to record our formal conclusion, but, an extremely pertinent and pregnant one, another aspect in the context of this case warrants to be addressed. This Notification also expired because a Declaration under Section 6 had not been promulgated within one year. If, however, the period specified or extended expires and no views of the State Legislature are received, the second condition laid down in the proviso is fulfilled in spite of the fact that the views of the State Legislature have not been expressed.

The period within which the State Legislature must express its views has to be specified by the President; but the President may extend the period so specified. The respondent claimed that account should be made in accordance with this custom in affecting the partition of the family. 2001, for which the Appellants filed their Objections under Section 5A yet again. The Respondent State now vainly essays to take unfair and ill-founded advantage of decisions and opinions of this Court to contend that the subject acquisition stands completed in all respects, thereby endeavouring, illegally in our considered opinion, to avoid performance of their statutory obligations of computing compensation and then paying it.

The Ordinance was riot discriminative and did not violate Art. Besides, if the Ordinance did not make any classification of persons but only created an offence and provided stringent procedure and punishment then there was no discrimination at all as everybody who committed the offence was subjected to the same procedure. In view of the circumstances existing in the State, " enemy agents " and other persons aiding the I, enemy " to whom the Ordinance applied formed a reasonable classification which was founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguished such persons from others and the differentia had a rational relation to the object of the Ordinance which was to check subversion of the Government.

Once again, in 2004, fresh steps were initiated for acquisition which also expired for the same reason. In this statement he pleaded inter alia that there was a custom amongst the community for a member of the joint family to set up a separate family after marriage and that monies drawn by him thereafter would be entered in a separate account called Pathuvazhi and that at the time of the partition the amounts appearing in the said account would be debited to the said member.

The intention seems to be to give an opportunity to the State Legislature to express its views within the time allowed; if the State Legislature fails to avail itself of that opportunity, such failure does not invalidate the introduction of the Bill. Act had not been duly completed. 1999 in respect of which the Appellants filed Objections under Section 5A on a consideration of which the Land Acquisition Officer had opined that the Notification issued in 1987 could not be continued with as the Award had not been passed within the stipulated time period thereby making it necessary to issue the 1999 Notification.

Hence yet another Notification was published on 13. If the legislature intended to exclude a transfer constituting an act of insolvency from the operation of these provisions, it would have introduced a proviso to that effect. This Notification also lapsed, since the sequence of events as contemplated in the L. On the other hand, the Act makes ample provision for setting aside such transfers. The Respondent State issued a Notification under Section 4 of the L.

Therefore, unless such a transfer is duly annulled in the manner prescribed, the transfer would' be valid. Thus, the proviso lays down two conditions: one is that no Bill shall be introduced except on the recommendation of the President, and the second condition is that where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has to be referred by the President to the Legislature of the State for expressing its views thereon. The learned judges of the High Court were of opinion that the evidence of witness Jadunath was wholly unacceptable and that the plaintiff's evidence that he came to know of the alleged sale on January 2, 1944, could not be accepted.

14 Of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the proviso to indicate that Parliament must accept or act upon the views of the State Legislature. Sections 53 and 54 of the Act enable the Official Receiver to have voluntary transfers made within two years of the insolvency petition and that made in fraudulent preference of one creditor over another within three months from the date of the petition annulled by the Court. In reply to the contentions thus raised by the appellants the respondent filed a reply.

The relevant records are directed to be produced before the Committee within five days. This first Notification under Section 4 came to be followed by subsequent Notifications, lucidly illustrating the understanding of the Respondent State that the preceding Notification had lapsed by operation of the statute. We direct the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India and the four oil companies to render full, complete and meaningful assistance and cooperation to the Committee.