Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13243 (3.19 seconds)
Documents citing Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011

Bimla Chopra & Anr vs Kuldeep on 2 May, 2023

"40. The Plaintiff herein, is not seeking protection of her possession under Section 53A of the TPA in the present case. She, having purchased the property through various documents namely, Agreement to Sell, Will, letter of possession and receipt, is seeking to evict her son and daughter-in-law who she had permitted to stay with her in the suit property. The Plaintiff only needs to establish a better title than the Defendants and not an absolute title. Suraj Lamps (Supra) clearly holds that though sales by Agreement to Sell, Will, etc, are not legally valid modes of transfer, they are permitted to get the transactions already entered into, regularised.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Shakuntala Rathi vs Sh. Balkishan on 27 February, 2015

6. As far as the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property on the basis of GPA, Will, Agreement to Sell, affidavit, possession letter and receipt all dated 10.03,2003 is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel for plaintiff that since the aforesaid documents were executed by defendant no. 6 in favour of the plaintiff much prior to the date of judgment in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Limited Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 656, the claim of ownership by the plaintiff on the basis of aforesaid documents is not affected CS No. 215/14 Shakuntala Rathi Vs. Balkishan & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S D.S.S. Hotel (P) Ltd. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 4 September, 2019

Similarly, in the present case the mutation order was sanctioned in favour of respondent no.3 and 4 on 24.01.2011 following which a release deed was executed in favour of the petitioner company on 31.1.2011, both of which are prior to the date of decision in Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (supra).Thereby, the present transaction was not effected by the observations of the said judgement.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - J Nath - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... vs Vishal Dilip Sankhe, Mumbai on 30 January, 2019

8.1. Coming to the exemption claimed u/s. 54F of the Act, AO denied the benefit of exemption mainly for two reasons. According to the AO, investments made in new house property is beyond a period of two years from the date of transfer of original asset and also the assessee is not having any legal title over the property, therefore, not eligible for exemption u/s. 54F. AO has relied upon the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Haryana [340 ITR 1] (SC), wherein it was held that sale of immoveable property can be made only by a registered instrument and agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on such property. We find that assessee has filed complete details in respect of purchase of new house property as per which assessee has been allotted a flat by way of allotment letter dt. 27-01-2012. Although the agreement for sale has been registered on 30-01-2014, the fact remains that when the builder has allotted a flat by way of an allotment letter and assessee has made substantial amount of consideration for acquisition of property, the right and interest in the property passed on to the purchaser as on the date of issue of allotment letter but not on the date of registration of agreement. This proposition has been reiterated by various : 22 : ITA No. 4376/Mum/2017 Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals, wherein it was held that even assessee acquires substantial domain, over new house and has made substantial payment towards cost of construction within a specified period under the provisions of Section 54F of the Act, then merely for the reason that agreement to sale has been registered on subsequent date cannot be a reason for rejection of exemption claimed u/s. 54F.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunny Saini S/O S R Saini vs Manjeet Singh And Ors on 5 August, 2025

Trial court in this regard has held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.: 183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC) being only prospective in nature and therefore will not affect the validity of the subject documents executed in 2008, however in my opinion this reasoning is questionable, but the subject suit for possession still had to be decreed because respondent/plaintiff can definitely be said to be suing as an attorney for and on behalf of the owner Laiq Ahmed, and Laiq Ahmed is not in any manner objecting to the respondent/plaintiff taking possession of the suit property. Respondent/plaintiff therefore clearly is held to have an entitlement to take possession of the suit property, not only on behalf of the Laiq Ahmed but also because he had a better title to possession of the suit property than the appellant/defendant. This additional reasoning I am giving under Order XLI Rule 24 CPC. Trial court therefore, in my opinion, was justified in decreeing the suit for possession and mesne profits."
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next