Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Hansa Industries Pvt. Ltd. And Others vs Kidarsons Industries Pvt. Ltd on 13 October, 2006

Narendra Nath Nanda vs Rajender Nath Nanda And Anr. on 28 July, 2017

24.In order to give effect to the directions of the Supreme Court in its judgment in Hansa Industries Pvt. Ltd &Ors. vs. Kidarsons Industies (Pvt.) Ltd. (2006) 8 SCC 531, the Court further directs the Chartered Accountants M/s. V. Shankar Iyer & Co., who as per the directions of the Division Bench did a recalculation of the value of the Golf Links Property, to ascertain the final amount to be paid by Narendra Nath Nanda to the Appellants so as to enable him to get portions of the Golf Links Property and as to the entitlement of other parties to various assets, and submit its report to the Court within six weeks.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Kidarsons Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Hansa Industries Pvt. Ltd. on 28 July, 2017

24.In order to give effect to the directions of the Supreme Court in its judgment in Hansa Industries Pvt. Ltd &Ors. vs. Kidarsons Industies (Pvt.) Ltd. (2006) 8 SCC 531, the Court further directs the Chartered Accountants M/s. V. Shankar Iyer & Co., who as per the directions of the Division Bench did a recalculation of the value of the Golf Links Property, to ascertain the final amount to be paid by Narendra Nath Nanda to the Appellants so as to enable him to get portions of the Golf Links Property and as to the entitlement of other parties to various assets, and submit its report to the Court within six weeks.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shri Gopal Mohan Vadhera vs Shri Jagdish Rai Vadhera And Ors. [Along ... on 28 November, 2007

9. The learned Counsel appearing for the other parties also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hansa Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Kidarsons Industries Pvt. Ltd. wherein the Supreme Court observed that courts have always leaned in favor of upholding a family arrangement instead of disturbing the same on technical or trivial grounds.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Col. Inderjeet Singh vs Mr. Vikram Singh & Anr on 13 July, 2012

23. It is settled law that a family settlement does not require registration if either party recognises antecedent title of the other in the property and the dispute between the parties stands resolved by a compromise. There family settlement does not operate or purport to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any rights of the parties to the said property within the meaning of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. (See Hansa Industries vs. Kidarsons Industries Ltd., AIR 2007 SC 18, paragraphs 11, 12 and 13.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 9 - M Singh - Full Document

Satya Pal Gupta vs Sudhir Kumar Gupta on 1 July, 2013

The Supreme Court in Hansa Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Kidarsons Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2006) 8 SCC 531 has held that a family settlement is based on the assumption that there is an antecedent title of some sort in the parties and the settlement acknowledges and defines what that title is with each party relinquishing all claims to property other than that falling to their respective share and recognizing the right of others as they had previously asserted to the portions allotted to them respectively. It was further held that it is for this reason that no conveyance is required in such case to pass the CS(OS) 1399/2011 & CS(OS) 1480/2011 Page 11 of 18 title from the one in whom it resides to the person receiving it under the settlement as it is assumed that the title claimed by the person receiving the property under the settlement had always resided in him/her so far as the property falling to his/her is concerned and therefore no conveyance is necessary. However in the present case the claim if any of SPG to the title of the upper floors of the property was on the plea of Benami which is not permissible and else the claim of SPG even as per the balance sheet of SPG and SKG was only for recovery by SPG from SKG of the sale consideration paid by SPG for the property and which cannot be said to be a claim to the upper floors of the property. The doctrine of family settlement is thus not available to SPG.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Sudhir Kumar Gupta vs S.P. Gupta on 1 July, 2013

The Supreme Court in Hansa Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Kidarsons Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2006) 8 SCC 531 has held that a family settlement is based on the assumption that there is an antecedent title of some sort in the parties and the settlement acknowledges and defines what that title is with each party relinquishing all claims to property other than that falling to their respective share and recognizing the right of others as they had previously asserted to the portions allotted to them respectively. It was further held that it is for this reason that no conveyance is required in such case to pass the CS(OS) 1399/2011 & CS(OS) 1480/2011 Page 11 of 18 title from the one in whom it resides to the person receiving it under the settlement as it is assumed that the title claimed by the person receiving the property under the settlement had always resided in him/her so far as the property falling to his/her is concerned and therefore no conveyance is necessary. However in the present case the claim if any of SPG to the title of the upper floors of the property was on the plea of Benami which is not permissible and else the claim of SPG even as per the balance sheet of SPG and SKG was only for recovery by SPG from SKG of the sale consideration paid by SPG for the property and which cannot be said to be a claim to the upper floors of the property. The doctrine of family settlement is thus not available to SPG.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Kailash Prasad (Dead) Through Lrs ... vs Jagdish Sharma on 28 October, 2025

9. As the stamp duty paid was lesser than the requisite stamp duty, therefore relying upon the judgment of Hansa Industries Pvt. Limited vs. Kidarsons Industries Pvt. Ltd [AIR, 2007 SC 18] and in the light of Section 17 of 'the Act, 1908' the trial court has ordered the document to be impounded for subsequent proceedings. For impounding, the deficient stamp duty and a penalty of up to ten times of that amount must be paid under Sections 35 or 40 of 'the Act, 1899', depending on whether the document is admitted in court or sent to the Collector. Even after payment, this process does not substitute for the legal requirement of registration, and the document remains an unregistered instrument.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next