Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Guddi Wife Of Keshav Das vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 1 April, 1997

Ram Kumar Son Of Late Fateh Singh, Ram ... vs The State Of U.P. Through Its District ... on 29 September, 2005

The Full Bench in Smt. Guddi's case (supra) considered one of the questions as to whether right created under the instrument in question of catching the fish, in favour of the petitioner from Pachaura Tank reservoir for a period of five years on payment of premium is a lease within the meaning of Section 2(16) of the Act, chargeable to stamp duty in accordance with Article 35 of Schedule 1-B of the Stamp Act in the light of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court referred to therein or it is a licence chargeable to stamp duty under Article 5(c) of Schedule 1-B of the Act as held by the three Judge Special Bench of this Court in Board of Revenue v. Mulak Raj (supra). The Full Bench in paragraph 10 of the said judgment held that right to catch any carry away fish from a tank/reservoir for a specified period for consideration is immovable property as defined in Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act and it may be made only by a registered instrument under Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act and as such requires stamp duty under Article 35(b) of Schedule 1 - B of the Indian Stamp Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 6 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Tika Ram & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 9 September, 2009

27. Relying on Keshav Das v. State of U.P. reported in 1995 (6) SCC 240, Learned Counsel urged that it has been held in the above ruling that where the possession of the land was already taken during the acquisition process and construction had been made and completed, the question of urgency and exercise of duty under Section 17 (4) of the Act could not be raised at a belated stage. Therefore, Learned Counsel insisted that the situation is no different in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 122 - Cited by 72 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

Kuldeep Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 23 December, 2014

In a similar situation which come up before the Court today, the personal affidavit was required to be filed by the S.S.P., Agra in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39291 of 2014 (Smt. Guddi Vs. State) but he could not file his personal affidavit as he was also transferred from the said district but an affidavit has been filed by Additional Superintendent of Police, Agra who is holding the charge of S.S.P., Agra.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - R Sinha - Full Document

Smt. Guddi @ Guddi Bano vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 13 July, 2022

The present revision is preferred to set-aside the impugned order dated 04.05.2022 passed by learned Session Judge, Agra in Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2021 (Smt. Guddi Vs. State of U.P. and others), under Section 29 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Jagdishpura, District Agra whereby the revisionist's appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R Chaturvedi - Full Document
1