Pawan Kumar vs . Delhi Administration 1987 Cc Cases on 1 September, 2012
State V. Basant
01.09.2012
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 802 (5.88 seconds)Documents citing
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Basant Nahata on 7 September, 2005
Fir No:791/2002 vs Basant on 16 May, 2012
In the present case no public witness was joined in the
investigation by the IO. The present case was registered at the
complaint of ASI Sri Bhagwan and he is also the first investigating
officer of the present case. It is not fair as per the principles of natural
justice that the complainant himself investigated the case when other
officials were also available. The second I.O. is not examined. Site
plan of place of occurrence not proved.
M.Kathirvel vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 16 March, 2022
118.In the case of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Basant Nahata
311
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.10291/2022 etc batch
reported in 2005 [12] SCC 77, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
constitutional validity of Section 22-A which was introduced by the State of
Rajasthan by an amendment in the year 1976. Section 22A enables the
Government by a Notification to declare any registration of any document or class
of documents as opposed to public policy. The Registering Officer shall refuse to
register any document to which a Notification issued by States is applicable. By a
Notification, the Power of Attorney authorising the attorney to transfer any
immovable property for a term in excess of six months or irrevocable or when the
term is not mentioned, is declared to be opposed to public policy. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court examined the words ''public policy'' and ''opposed to public policy''
with reference to Section 23 of the Contract Act and other legislations. After
referring to several precedents on the interpretation of statute, the provisions and
objects and purposes of Registration Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
follows:-
Om Prakash Sharma,Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2), Jaipur on 22 April, 2025
We also take into consideration the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Rajasthan vs Basant Nehta (supra) wherein it is held
that:-
M.Kathirvel vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 16 March, 2022
118.In the case of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Basant Nahata
311
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.10291/2022 etc batch
reported in 2005 [12] SCC 77, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
constitutional validity of Section 22-A which was introduced by the State of
Rajasthan by an amendment in the year 1976. Section 22A enables the
Government by a Notification to declare any registration of any document or class
of documents as opposed to public policy. The Registering Officer shall refuse to
register any document to which a Notification issued by States is applicable. By a
Notification, the Power of Attorney authorising the attorney to transfer any
immovable property for a term in excess of six months or irrevocable or when the
term is not mentioned, is declared to be opposed to public policy. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court examined the words ''public policy'' and ''opposed to public policy''
with reference to Section 23 of the Contract Act and other legislations. After
referring to several precedents on the interpretation of statute, the provisions and
objects and purposes of Registration Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
follows:-
State Of Gujarat Notice To Be Served ... vs Rajiv Maheshkumar Mehta & 3 on 9 August, 2016
15. Therefore, on the contention raised on Sections 32
and 33 came to be negatived by learned Single Judge and
it is perused in juxtaposition of Section 34, by which, the
inquiry is envisaged before registration by Registering
Officer is of very limited in nature and barring what is
provided no other inquiry can be held by registering
officer about legality and validity of the title and for the
above, we are in agreement with law laid down in the case
of (1) Krishna Gopal Kataria & Anr. v. State of Punjab &
Ors. (2) State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Basant Nahata (3)
Pandurangan v. Sub-Registrar, Reddiar-palayam
Pondicherry & Ors. And (4) Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan
Ghosh Dastidar and Anr.
Dhiraj Kumar Sah vs State Of Jharkhand Through Secretary on 3 November, 2025
23. Admittedly, Section 22A of the Registration Act has been
declared ultra vires by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court in
the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Basant Nahata (supra) and Chotanagpur
Diocesan Trust Association vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra)
respectively. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
Notification contained in Memo No. 195 dated 19.02.2016 and Memo No.
371 dated 13.06.2016, being Executive order, issued to give effect to Section
22A of the Registration Act 1908 cannot sustain in eye of law when Section
22A of the Registration Act 1908 itself has been declared ultra vires.
C.Radhakrishnama Naidu And Others vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. ... on 1 June, 2015
Notwithstanding the legal effect of registration on the
property, the Legislature felt it necessary to provide for measures at
the formalization of transactions by prohibiting these documents
from registration. The amendment through Act 4/1999 did not stand
to judicial scrutiny in view of ratio laid down in Basant Nahatas case
(supra 4).
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors vs M/S. Neelambar Finvest P.Ltd on 16 March, 2009
In the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Basant Nahata (supra) the Apex
Court held that absence of guideline per se could not vitiate a particular provision if
it otherwise conforms to the object of the statute, if read as a whole. We have just
now held that the impugned provision did have a nexus with the object of the Act. It
being a taxing statute must be interpreted liberally so that the Corporation can realise
effectively property tax which is one of the main source of providing infrastructure
for water supply. Hence, only because it lacks proper guidelines it should not be
struck down. Hence, we intend to apply the doctrine of "reading down" by providing
appropriate guide line for the same. The Municipal Commissioner is only authorized
to exercise such power. He, being a highly responsible officer of the Corporation,
must exercise it with great care and caution and as such he is not entitled to sub-
delegate his power taking recourse to Section 47 and 48 of the said Act of 1980.
16.2. The Municipal Commissioner must also give reasonable notice to the owner as
well as the occupants of the house so that they could offer explanation or take
appropriate steps by approaching the court of law, inter alia, contending that such
exercise of power in that particular facts and circumstances was not lawful. Seventy-
two hours notice, in our view, was too short, more so when it is served at the end of
the week putting hindrance on the notice from approaching the court of law. We,
thus, feel seven days notice being a reasonable period should be given by the
Commissioner himself before actual disconnection takes place.
16.3. There is a chance of misuse between same class of people both having
outstanding more than one year. Hence, before issuance of such notice the Municipal
Commissioner must record reasons in writing in the concern file of the Corporation
to the extent that in his opinion in a given case exercise of such power would be in
the interest of the Corporation. He must also record reasons why he does not think it
appropriate to utilize other mode as contemplated under Section 214 or any other
provisions of the Act before exercising such power. This is required to enable the
court of law to examine the reasons, if approached by the notice, after receipt of
notice. In this regard we may refer to section 400 of the said Act of 1980 where
identical procedure has been laid down. Under Section 400(1) the Corporation can
effect demolition of any unauthorized construction by giving reasonable notice being
not less than five days and more than fifteen days from the date on which the copy of
the order of demolition with a brief statement of reasons has been delivered to such
person. Before effecting demolition the notice is also entitled to be heard on his
objection, if filed and after the hearing is concluded the Municipal Commissioner
would pass appropriate order for demolition. However, in addition to such procedure,
section 400(8) provides another procedure to the effect that notwithstanding anything
contained in the said Chapter in which such provision has been enacted if the Mayor-
in-Council is of the opinion that immediate action is called for it may, for reasons to
be recorded in writing, cause such building or work to be demolished forthwith. Such
provision could be said less advantageous or harsh than the provision under sub-
section (1) which provides for hearing to the objector. However, in such a case the
Legislature thought it fit that the Mayor-in-Council would only be entitled to exercise
such provision and that too after reasons to be recorded in writing. In our view, same
procedure can be adopted while exercising such power by the Municipal
Commissioner under the impugned provision.
Manoj Kumar Gupta vs State Of Rajasthan Through P.P on 9 May, 2018
Section 22A of Stamp Act has already been declared
ultra vires by Apex Court in Basant Nahata's Case (supra)
resulting Notification/s relating thereto rescinded, this aspect is
also not in dispute, so there was no reason to enter into the quest
to ascertain title of vendor and such was the situation, which was
reiterated by State while dealing with the Assembly query
No.6456.