Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (1.70 seconds)
Documents citing M.V. Shannkar Bhat & Anr vs Claude Pinto Since (Deceased) By L.Rs. & ... on 14 February, 2003

B.R. Vasudevamurthy S/O. H.D. ... vs Hon'Ble Minister For Revenue, ... on 22 December, 2006

42. The sanction and grant orders passed by the State Government and Spl. D.C in respect of the lands in question were subject to the rights of the inamdars under Section 9 of the Inams Abolition Act to seek grant of occupancy rights by filing the application within the prescribed period under Section 10 of the Act. The words "subject to" used in the above orders shall be understood by us as mentioned in Blacks Law Dictionary and Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary, it means 'subservient'; therefore grant of the lands in favour of the Sangha/Association for the purpose of formation of residential layout and allot the sites in favour of its members was subject to the order that was to be passed by the Land Tribunal on the application of the inamdars under Section 9 of the Inams Abolition Act in respect of the very same lands. Since the Land Tribunal conferred occupancy rights in favour of the inamdars in respect of the lands in question by order dt. 23/6/1982, the sanction order and grant order have vanished and lost their significance. The condition imposed by the State Government and Spl.D.C in their orders while granting the lands in favour of the Sangha is legal and valid as held by the Apex Court in the cases reported in AIR 1961 SC 1182 (Balakrishna & Sons v. State of Madras) para 3, (Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India and Ors.) and 1995 SCR 777 (The State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and Anr.) The State Government has exercised its power retained in the order of sanction by invoking its right as held in (Gujarat University and Anr. v. Shri Krishna) & (Mysore State E. Board v. Bangalore W.C. & S. Mills), (M.V. Shankar Bhat and Anr. v. Claude Pinto and Ors.), (South India Corporation (P) Ltd v. Secy. Board of Revenue, Trivandrum And Anr.) and passed the impugned order cancelling the grant and directing the Deputy Commissioner of the District for resumption and restoration of the lands to an extent of 182 sites which are vacant. The same is legal and valid.
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document

M/S. Chetanya Properties & Investment ... vs Nainital Bank Ltd. on 25 April, 2011

23. Though no reference to the decisions cited is required for the settled legal proposition, i.e., where an Offer is not unconditionally accepted, no concluded contract can be said to have been arrived at, but I find that the decisions reported in Dresser Rand S.A. vs. M/s. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 871; M.V. Shankar Bhat and another vs. Claude Pinto (D.) by LRs.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Gaur - Full Document

Icici Bank Limited vs Sebi on 8 July, 2020

9. Therefore, as per the RBI Guidelines it was contended that the banks could not have considered the Binding Agreement as a concluded contract unless board approvals had been obtained and, therefore, when the boards of both the banks were not privy to the Binding Agreement it was not liable to be disclosed, particularly, when the Binding Agreement also contained confidentiality provisions to that effect. The appellant further relied on the decision of the 11 Supreme Court in M. V. Shankar Bhat & Anr v Claude Pinto since (Deceased) by LRs & Ors - (2003) 4 SCC 86 wherein it was held that "31. When an agreement is entered into subject to ratification by others, a concluded contract is not arrived at. Whenever ratification by some other persons, who are not parties to the agreement is required, such a clause must be held to be a condition precedent for coming into force of a concluded contract."
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 15 - Cited by 12 - T Agarwala - Full Document

Maheshbhai Jivrajbhai Gujarati vs Krishna Pravinbhai Gujarati on 1 September, 2021

58. The case of M.V. Shankar Bhat vs. Claude Pinto, (2003) 4 SCC 86, is also similarly of a conditional contract. The agreement was "subject to ratification by the co-heirs to terms hereinafter appearing". It was observed in paras 14 & 15 of the judgment that the restrictive covenant would amount to a conditional agreement. It has been observed in para 31 of the judgment that when an agreement is entered into subject to ratification by others, a concluded contract is not arrived at. Such a clause is condition precedent for coming into force of a concluded contract.
Gujarat High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Maheshbhai Jivrajbhai Gujarati vs Krishna Pravinbhai Gujarati on 1 September, 2021

58. The case of M.V. Shankar Bhat vs. Claude Pinto, (2003) 4 SCC 86, is also similarly of a conditional contract. The agreement was "subject to ratification by the co-heirs to terms hereinafter appearing". It was observed in paras 14 & 15 of the judgment that the restrictive covenant would amount to a conditional agreement. It has been observed in para 31 of the judgment that when an agreement is entered into subject to ratification by others, a concluded contract is not arrived at. Such a clause is condition precedent for coming into force of a concluded contract.
Gujarat High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next