Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing Lachhman Dass vs Ram Lal & Anr on 30 March, 1989

Sikha Sarkar vs Amitava Chowdhury & Ors on 18 July, 2024

In Ram Lal case [Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal, (1989) 3 SCC 99] , reliance was also placed on Ratan Lal Sharma v. Purshottam Harit [Ratan Lal Sharma v. Purshottam Harit, (1974) 1 SCC 671] to hold that the arbitration award in the said case 20 did not just seek to assign a share of the respondent to the appellant therein, but made an exclusive allotment of the partnership assets including the factory and liabilities to the appellant therein. Therefore, the award in express words purported to create rights in immovable property worth a sum above Rs 100 in favour of the appellant therein. It was accordingly held that it would mandatorily require registration under Section 17 of the Act.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R Mantha - Full Document

Sri M.S. Kumanan And Sri M.S. Mathivanan vs S.S.M. Processing Mills Ltd., Sri P. ... on 27 December, 2006

Similarly, there is no force in the argument of the petitioners that the award not having been registered is not enforceable in view of the fact that (a) transmission of the shares already stands effected in the name of the second respondent group; and (b) petitioners claimed M/s Tan India Mines & Minerals Limited in BIFR proceedings on the strength of the award and therefore, the decision in Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal and Anr. (supra) does not go in the aid of the petitioners.
Company Law Board Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

John vs Elikutty on 8 April, 2009

In the decision reported in Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal and Another (1989) 3 SCC 99 , it was held that for the purpose of registration of a document, Section 17 of the Registration Act has to be strictly construed and at the same time, it was held that the plea of invalidating the award on the ground of non- registration may not be open after the lapse of the prescribed period of limitation in an application under Sections 30 to 33 of the Registration Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harendra H Mehta Anid Ors vs Mukesh H. Mehta And Ors on 13 May, 1999

In Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal & Anr., [1989] 3 SCC 99, there was dispute between the brothers respecting certain piece of land which stood in the name of the appellant. Claim of the respondent was that it was Benami in the name of the appellant. They set an arbitration who gave his award and then filed the same in the Court for making that rule of the Court. One of the objections raised by the appellant was that the award was bad and unenforceable. It was hot properly stamped nor it was registered one and as such could not be made rule of the court; The award which was under the Arbitration Act, 1940 said that half ownership of the disputed land was now be owned by the respondent. Then the award gave certain directions. This Court said that the award affected immoveable property of the value of over Rs 100/- and as such required to be registered Under the Registration Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 19 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Amar Nath Kapoor And Others. vs Krishna Gopal Kapoor And Others. on 25 May, 2016

In Ratan Lal Sharma v. Purshottam Harit, AIR 1974 SC 1066 is also a judgement relied on in Lachhman Dass (supra). In a partnership firm's division of assets, Court held that it makes an exclusive allotment of partnership assets including factory liabilities, payments, hence registration is compulsory and clause of agreement dealing with immovable property would not be enforcible, if award is not registered.
Allahabad High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.Arumuga Velaiah vs Pr.Ramasamy And Another on 27 January, 2022

c) In Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal, [1989] 3 SCC 99, the issue was that the arbitrator’s award had not been properly stamped and as such could not be made the rule of the Court. It was also contended that the award was unregistered and as such it could not be made the rule of the Court as it affected immovable property of more than Rs. 100. The said contention was accepted by the Trial Court but in second appeal the High Court observed that the award was stamped properly and it did not require any registration as the award did not create any right as such in the immovable property; it only admitted 25 the already existing rights between the parties and hence registration was not required. Hence the question considered was whether the Court could have looked into the award for the purpose of pronouncing judgment upon the award. On a construction of the award questioned therein the decision of the High Court was reversed. In doing so, this Court took into consideration section 17 (1) (e) of the Act as well as sections 23, 25 and 49 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 16 - B V Nagarathna - Full Document

Anant Raj Agencies vs Delhi Development Authority on 26 July, 2000

In Lachhman Das Vs. Ram Lal, , the Supreme Court and in Rajender Prasad Sharma Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma, 1996 (2) Arb. L.R. 362, a Division Bench of this Court have been at pains to observe that a duty is cast on the Court to positively and proactively peruse the Award so as to be assured of its correctness before pronouncing judgment on its terms. Nonetheless, whether the Award receives the Courts imprimatur automatically or after due considerations, in both the eventualities, it seems to me that the Order/Judgment would have an ex parte character. This would not justify obscuring the distinction between an ex-parte decree, and a decree passed ex parte the defendant/respondent. The Court must, even in default of any appearance for the Objector, consider the Objections on the record and either accept them wholly or in part, or reject them. In this event, it can scarcely be argued that the Court had proceeded to pronounce judgment without "refusing the application for setting aside the Award". Such an order/judgment would not assume an ex parte character. The principle of audi alteram mandates that an opportunity should be afforded to all parties to be heard. In my view, this principle would be unduly stretched and strained to require that justice may be delayed for the sake of hearing the oral submissions of a non diligent litigant.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 6 - V Sen - Full Document

Prakash Sharma vs D.D.A. And Others on 3 March, 2000

In Lachhman Dass Vs. Ram Lal & Anr., , a distinction has been observed between the powers of the Court under the sundry provisions of the Arbitration Act, Viz. Sections 30 and 33, on the one hand, and Section 14 on the other. In the objections filed under the former Sections, attention was drawn to the fact that the Award was hit by the prescription of Section 49 of the Registration Act. The Award was unregistered even though it created rights in immovable property of a value exceeding Rs. 100/-. It was held that despite that failure to take this Objection, the Court could take cognisance of this illegality under Section 17 and decline to make the Award the Rule of the Court since the failure to register the Award was per se sufficient reason to set it aside.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 2 - V Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next