Legal effects of Recognition

International Law:

although recognition is political diplomatic function and depends upon the discretion of recognising state, once recognition is accorded, certain legal effects ensue:

1. The recognised state becomes entitled to sue in the courts of recognising state.

2. The courts of the recognising state give effect to the past as well as present legislation and executive acts of the recognised states,

3. In regard to the property and diplomatic relations, the recognised state can claim certain immunity,

4. The diplomatic envoys of the recognised state get a number of privilleges and immunities in the recognising state.

Provisions for the acquisition of the interest of certain rent-receivers

land Laws of Bangladesh:

Using Section-3 and Section-20 of the State Acquisition & Tenancy Act 1950 the power of the land lords as a rent receiver has been decreased. This two section enable the provincial government to acquire all the rent-receiving interest and in fact, by several notifications, Government has acquired such interests and to totally wiped out the intermediate estates. Specifically this was done by Section-3 of the State Acquisition & Tenancy Act 1950. Again in Section-20 of the said Act also provides provisions for those lands or interests which can be retained in the possession of rent-receivers with certain conditions. And both of this sections also have some consequences. Ultimately we can say that:

1. The interest which can be taken by the Government are mentioned in Section-3 of State Acquisition & Tenancy Act 1950,

2. The interest which can be retained in the possession of rent-receives are mentioned in Section-20,

3. Consequences of this acquisition and retention is mentioned in both Section-3 and Section-20 of the State Acquisition & Tenancy Act 1950.

It was stated in the case of "Jibendra Kishore Vs Province of East Pakistan",

"the intention of the provision of this Act was to eliminate all rent-receiving interests in all the lands in the province and to create a uniform class of tenants directly under the provincial Government"

What are the provisions regarding the "time for presenting documents" under Registration Act (1908) ?

Under Section-23 of the Registration Act its been mentioned that, following the provisions of section-24, 25, 26 a document except will shall be presented for registration to the proper officer with 3 months from the date of its execution.
And in case of decree or order it shall be registered within 3 months on the day when it was made or where its appeal able, within 3 months from the day on which it becomes final.

Time for presenting a Will deed:

under Section-27 a will may at any time be presented for registration or deposited in manner hereinafter provided.

It was established in judgment that,
"time for presenting documents-for the purpose of registration a document need not be dated and parol evidence may be given as to the date of execution" [1 CLJ 126]

Effect of non registration of documents required to be registered under Registration Act (1908)

No document required by Section-17 of the Registration Act(1908) or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act(1882) to be registered shall-

a. Affect any immovable property comprised therein, (create, declare assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent)

b. Confer any power to adopt, unless its been registered.[this provision is specifically mentioned in Section-49 of the Registration Act 1908]

in the case of "Jana Vs Saida" [PLD 1952 Pesh 68], it was stated that,

"a person who has been put in possession of the property as a result of an unregistered document can protect his possession by the production of that document and not suit the person who has executed he and has actually put him in possession of the property"

in another case it was stated,
"an unregistered document could be received evidence in a suit for specific performance" [8 DLR 611]

again it was established,
"an unregistered (in case of lease) may be used for the purpose of showing the nature of possession though not of proving title"

Reasons for which some jurists do not regard International Law as true law

1. Under international law, there is no impartial tribunal which can adjudicate upon the disputes between the states having binding force or authority.

2. It cant be termed as true law as there is no support or certification by any sovereign authority behind the law.

3. ICJ has no real power to enforce its declared decision(Paton). Any sovereign state can accept it even they can deny it on their own wish.

Article-59 of the ICJ makes clear that the common law notion of precedent doesnt apply to the decisions of ICJ. The courts decision only binds the parties to to that particular controversy.

4. There is no sanctionary power to enforce the international law. As there is on specific sovereign power, sovereign states often gets the  influence opportunity to violate the provisions of international law.

5. The provisions of international law aren't binding on states and if any of the provisions gets violated there is neither any sanction nor any remedy against the violation.

6. The orders of international law cant be higher than the sovereign.Thats why it is not any sovereign order but termed as law of positive morality. (Austin)

7. international law isn't codified through (sovereign) legislative machinary. It means international law has no legislature and no executive.

Lord Salisbury, observed it in the case of "Queen vs Keyn" that,

"international law is an inexact expression of law"

as there is no valid sovereign authority it is inexact, uncertain and insufficient. And that is why some jurists do not consider international law as a true law.

Principles of the case "Jibendra Kishore Vs Province of East Pakistan" [1957 9 DLR (SC) 21]

one principle says about the properties which can be acquired by the government:

"state can acquire wakf and debutter property like other properties
and they only have to qualify and restrict such acquisition in the
manner provided in sub-section-5 of section-20" <of State Acquisition
and Tenacy Act 1950>

another principle says about the consequences of State Acquisition and
Tenancy Act 1950:

"the intention of the provision of the Act, was to eliminate all
rent-receiving interest in all the lands in the province and to create
a uniform class of tenants directly under the provincial government"

Differences between Company and Partnership

The major differences between a company and partnership are as follows:

1. As to definition: a Company may be defined as an association of a number of persons, formed for some common purpose. It has a common seal and perpetuity.

On the other hand Partnership is the relationship of the persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business on by all or any of the acting for all (Section-4 of Partnership Act 1932)

2. Legal entity: a company has a separate legal entity distinct from the members who constitute it.

But partnership commonly called a firm, has no legal existence apart from its members. This means that partners and firm are one and same.

Partners work individually as per their agreement according to the
provision of the Partnership Act 1932

3. Liability: the liability of a share-holder is limited to the nominal amount of the shares held by him.
But the liability of partner is co-extensive with the whole of his property. Every partner in a firm is jointly and severally liable for all the debts of the firm.

4. Transfer of shares: except private companies the shares of public companies are freely transferable.

But a partner cant except by agreement with his co-partners; substitute another for himself.

5. Perpetual succession: a company has perpetual succession. Death, insolvency or the exit of share-holder does not affect the existence of the company. It comes to an end only when it is liquidated according to the provisions of the Act.

But the death or retirement of partner dissolves the partnership in absence of a contract to the contrary.

6. Number of member: in a public company there is no limit or the maximum number member while in a private company, the number members shall be restricted to fifty excluding its present and past employees.

On the other hand, in the case of a partnership carrying banking business, the maximum number of partners can be ten and in the case of any other business it is 20.

7. Contract: a share-holder may enter into a contract with a company, whereas a partner cant enter into a contract with his firm. However, a partner can enter into a contract with other partners.

8. Property of Institution: in the case of company, property belongs to the company and not to its members.
Whereas, the property of a partnership firm belongs to individual
partners comprising the firm [Re Geogre Newman & Co (1895)]

9. Power to Bind: except as may be allowed by the articles, a share-holder has no power to bind the company nor to other share-holders,
but in case of partnership a partner can bind the other partners for
the act done by anyone of them during the course of business.

10. Management: in a company, the share-holders do not interfere in affairs of the company directly. It is managed by the board of directors, whom are elected by the share-holders.
But a partnership is managed by all partners or any of them acting for all.

11. Creditor: creditors of a company are not the creditors of individual share-holders. The can proceed against the company alone. Creditors cant hold the share-holders directly liable for their amounts.

On the other hand, the creditors of a partnership firm are the creditors of individual partners and a decree obtained against a firm can be enforced against them.

12. Agent: a share-holder is not an agent of the company whereas a partner is an agent of his firm in connection with partnership business.

13. Alteration of basic document: the company is bound by its articles and memorandum of association. The power to alter there documents may exercised to a limited extent as per law.

But in case of partnership firm agreement being the basic document, may be liable to be altered on the wish of the partners.

14. As to Registration: company being a legal entity its registration
is a must but in case of partnership its not compulsory.

15. Statutory obligation: a company is strictly controlled by the Companies Act. But there are no such statutory obligations in a partnership.