Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The rule against perpetuities serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing owners to attach long-lasting contingencies to their property harms the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell the property, since few people would be willing to buy property that had unresolved issues regarding its ownership hanging over it.
Part XIV is a compilation of laws pertaining to the constitution of India as a country and the union of states that it is made of. This part of the constitution consists of Articles on Services Under the Union and the States. [1]
The Constitution of India is the supreme legal document of India ... India was under the British rule from 1858 to 1947. ... At 14 August 1947 meeting of the ...
Trust law in India is mainly codified in the Indian Trusts Act of 1882, which came into force on 1 March 1882. It extends to the whole of India except for the state of Jammu and Kashmir and Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Indian law follows principles of English law in most areas of law, but the law of trusts is a notable exception.
Article 14 guarantees equality to all persons [a], including citizens, corporations, and foreigners. [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] Its provisions have come up for discussion in the Supreme Court in a number of cases and the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Justice S R Tendolkar reiterated its meaning and scope as follows.
Rule against perpetuities – Legal rule prohibiting very long temporary interests in property List of territory purchased by a sovereign nation from another sovereign nation References
Executory interests are subject to the rule against perpetuities, which disqualifies any interest that can vest more than twenty-one years after the death of every party who was living at the time the interest was created. However, if all of the potential vesting beneficiaries are named, the rule will never be violated.
The amended Rules came into effect on 14 April 2016. The Supreme Court of India, in its verdict of 20 March 2018, banned immediate arrest of a person accused of insulting or injuring a member of a scheduled community to prevent arbitrary arrest. This led to a furore, which in turn led to a stunned parliament voting to overturn the judgement.