Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.05 seconds)
Documents citing Canbank Financial Services Ltd vs The Custodian & Others on 3 September, 2004

Mrs. Renuka vs Mrs. A. Kamalam (Died) on 19 June, 2020

In this context, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Canbank Financial Services Limited vs. Custodian and others) reported in 2004 (8) Supreme Court Cases 355 to contend that an admission by a party to the litigation does not confer title to the another. In para No.85 of this judgment, it was held as http://www.judis.nic.in 19/53 AS 298 of 2018 under:-
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - R Subbiah - Full Document

Canara Bank, Represented By The ... vs Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar ... on 28 November, 2006

20. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff also cited the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Canbank Financial Services Ltd., v. The Custodian to the effect that the property in the goods passes from the owner to the other by mere delivery of possession as per Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act. This judgment is cited out of context as Fixed Deposit is covered under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act; such a transfer would not amount to transfer of moveable property under the Sale of Goods Act.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

P.Srinivasan vs P.Gopal on 31 October, 2008

22. The Supreme Court has in the case of Canbank Financial Services v Custodian reported in 2004 (8) SCC 355 dealt with a plea of binami as well as the effect of holding of certain shares by a person holding a fudiciary relationship to the ultimate beneficiary. The Supreme Court laid down there that creation of title by an act of parties is always subject to law. Extinction of right, title and interest in a property must be caused as a result of operation of law and not otherwise. The logical corollary whereof would be that an admission of a party would not lead to a relinquishment of his rights therein, if he has acquired a title to the property. The title deed standing in the name of the 2nd defendant cannot conclude the issue; nor can the fact that the consideration has flowed from her be decisive, when the facts show that she had allowed her name to get the benefit on her husband's behalf when she ought to have known that he was abusing his position. The title to the property itself cannot be lost by the only fact that the document of purchase was ultimately taken in the name of the second defendant and therefore the ostensible owner will also be owner of the property. I am aware that the entire consideration after the payment of advance of nearly Rs.90,000/- had come only through liquidating the funds, fixed deposits and taking a draft to pay the vendors.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - K Kannan - Full Document

Canara Bank vs Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar on 28 November, 2006

20. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff also cited the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Canbank Financial Services Ltd., v. The Custodian reported in 2004 (4) CTC 755 to the effect that the property in the goods passes from the owner to the other by mere delivery of possession as per Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act. This judgment is cited out of context as Fixed Deposit is covered under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act; such a transfer would not amount to transfer of moveable property under the Sale of Goods Act.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Cascade Energy Pte Ltd vs Union Of India

To support the proposition that allotment is not transfer and creation is not transfer, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canbank Financial vs. Custodian [(2004) 8 SCC 355 (para 59,64,99)] and S.Samuel M.D., Harrisons Malayalam & Anr., [(2004) 1 SCC 256 (para 12,13,17). Further, it is submitted that from the typed set of documents filed by the respondent, it is seen that the note put up for issuance of show cause notice and the attachment is simultaneous, which will show that the second respondent acted in great haste, which establishes malafide intention. Subsequently, by a separate order, the petitioner was restrained from exercising their voting right as well. Further, it is submitted that attachment could have been done only if there is reasonal apprehension that the assessee is about to dispose of the security. The second respondent has not brought out as to on what basis he reasonably apprehended that the petitioner would alienate the shares when there was no such intention to do so. Further, the second respondent has not formed any opinion as required under Section 24(3) before passing the impugned order. In fact, the petitioners are effectively contesting their right to retain their holding in the company.
Madras High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document
1