Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing P.Kathiravan vs The Joint I Sub Registrar on 9 March, 2023

Sri Shivalingaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2026

31. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and others (supra) and by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in S.P Vairavan v. The Sub-registrar , Joint-I (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Both the said decisions were rendered in exceptional circumstances where there was a clear and undisputed infraction on the part of the registering authority, either due to lack of authority under the Power of Attorney or due to admitted fraud by the executant.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Mangalamma vs State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2026

31. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and others (supra) and by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in S.P Vairavan v. The Sub-registrar , Joint-I (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Both the said decisions were rendered in exceptional circumstances where there was a clear and undisputed infraction on the part of the registering authority, either due to lack of authority under the Power of Attorney or due to admitted fraud by the executant.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Vanajakshamma vs State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2026

NC: 2026:KHC:24602 WP No. 19583 of 2024 HC-KAR Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and others (supra) or by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in S.P. Vairavan vs. The Sub-Registrar (supra). In the case on hand, the impugned sale deed is not an isolated transaction, but is preceded by an Agreement of Sale dated 02.11.2007 coupled with a General Power of Attorney of even date, which, when read conjointly, prima facie indicate that the agency created thereunder is one coupled with interest, particularly in light of the admitted position that a substantial consideration of ₹21,00,000/- has been paid by respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the petitioners. The petitioners, despite being recipients of such consideration, have neither questioned the said foundational documents nor sought cancellation in a manner known to law.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri K Narayanappa vs State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2026

21. However, the facts in the present case stand on a distinctly different footing and are not analogous to those considered either by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and others (supra) or by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in S.P. Vairavan vs. The Sub-Registrar (supra). In the case on hand, the impugned sale deed is not an isolated transaction, but is preceded by an Agreement of Sale dated 21.12.2007
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Puttamma vs State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2026

21. However, the facts in the present case stand on a distinctly different footing and are not analogous to those considered either by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and others (supra) or by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in S.P. Vairavan vs. The Sub-Registrar (supra). In the case on hand, the impugned sale deed is not an isolated transaction, but is preceded by an Agreement of Sale dated 15.05.2008 coupled with a General Power of Attorney of even date, which, when read conjointly, prima facie indicate that the agency created thereunder is one coupled with interest, particularly in light of the admitted position that a substantial consideration of ₹24,00,000/- has been paid by respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the petitioner. The petitioner, despite being recipients of such consideration, has neither questioned the said foundational documents nor sought cancellation in a manner known to law.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. Puttarudraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2026

21. However, the facts in the present case stand on a distinctly different footing and are not analogous to those considered either by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and others (supra) or by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in S.P. Vairavan vs. The Sub-Registrar (supra). In the case on hand, the impugned sale deed is not an isolated transaction, but is preceded by an Agreement of Sale dated 02.08.2007 coupled with a General Power of Attorney of even date, which, when read conjointly, prima facie indicate that the agency created thereunder is one coupled with interest, particularly in light of the admitted position that a substantial consideration of ₹20,00,000/- has been paid by respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the petitioner. The petitioner, despite being recipients of such consideration, has neither questioned the said foundational documents nor sought cancellation in a manner known to law.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Rathnamma vs State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2026

21. However, the facts in the present case stand on a distinctly different footing and are not analogous to those considered either by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and others (supra) or by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in S.P. Vairavan vs. The Sub-Registrar (supra). In the case on hand, the impugned sale deed is not an isolated transaction, but is preceded by an Agreement of Sale dated 02.11.2007 coupled with a General Power of Attorney of even date, which, when read conjointly, prima facie indicate that the agency created thereunder is one coupled with interest, particularly in light of the admitted position that a substantial consideration of ₹34,00,000/- has been paid by respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the petitioners. The petitioners, despite being recipients of such consideration, have neither questioned the said foundational documents nor sought cancellation in a manner known to law.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Sudha vs State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2026

31. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P.Velayutham and others (supra) and by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in S.P Vairavan v. The Sub-registrar , Joint-I (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Both the said decisions were rendered in exceptional circumstances where there was a clear and undisputed infraction on the part of the registering authority, either due to lack of authority under
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. Ramasanjeevaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2026

21. However, the facts in the present case stand on a distinctly different footing and are not analogous to those considered either by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and others (supra) or by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in S.P. Vairavan vs. The Sub-Registrar (supra). In the case on hand, the impugned sale deed is not an isolated transaction, but is preceded by an Agreement of Sale dated 19.01.2008 coupled with a General Power of Attorney of even date, which, when read conjointly, prima facie indicate that the agency created thereunder is one coupled with interest, particularly in light of the admitted position that a substantial consideration of ₹20,00,000/- has been paid by respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the petitioner. The petitioner, despite being recipients of such consideration, has neither
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next