Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Omprakash vs Ganesh Shankar Mehta on 1 August, 2019

Channi Randhawa Dead Through The Leagl ... vs M/S Goel And Goel A Partnership Firm on 9 July, 2025

10. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has further argued that Ex.P/24, P/25 and P/26 are not admissible in evidence as these documents pertain to transaction of the immovable property and these documents were compulsorily registrable under Section 17(b)(c) of the Registration Act including M.P. State Amendment, 2010 and could not be used for collateral purpose also. He has further submitted that the documents are not properly stamped as required under Stamp Act. He has relied on the judgment of K.B. Saha and sons Private Limited Vs. Development Consultant Ltd., (2008) 5 CTC 260 particularly para No.34 of the judgment, the judgment of the this Court in the case of Omprakash Vs. Ganesh Shankar Mehta passed on 01.08.2019 and Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Behari Lal Kohli AIR 1989 SC 1806 in these cases it has been clearly held that if the document is inadmissible for non-registration, all its terms are inadmissible including the one dealing with landlord's permission to his tenant to sub-let.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satish Chandra Poddar vs Ashok Payasi on 28 June, 2022

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on order dated 01/08/2019 passed by a coordinate Bench in W.P No. 5914/2012 (Omprakash Vs. Ganesh Shankar Mehta) to submit that even if a document is unregistered it can be used for collateral purpose. However facts of the present case are different. Issue which emerges for consideration before this Court is whether the plaintiff can maintain a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of unregistered agreement.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document
1