Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing V. Parakashan vs K.P Pankajakshan And Anr. on 2 April, 1985

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 16 December, 2019

The transfer envisaged under Section 9(2) is not dependent on compliance of Section 50 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 55 of the Rules, 1989 nor is it invalidated or incomplete for this reason, meaning thereby, even if such transfer is not recorded in the registration records and Certificate of Registration, it is still valid and consequences will follow in law accordingly. Reference may be made in this regard to the decisions reported in AIR 1986 AP 62;Madineni Kondaiah and others etc. Vs. Yaseen Fatima and others, etc., AIR 1980 SC 871;Panna Lal Vs. Chand Mal and Ors., 1992 Cr.L.J. 2476;Virendrakumar J. Handa Vs. Dilawarkhan Alij Khan and Ors., 1985 Cr.L.J. 951 (Para 17);V. Parakashan Vs. K.P. Pankajakshan and Anr., (1979) 16 ACC 274; Kalpnath Singh Vs. Sheo Nath Rai, 1977 MhLJ 656; Kishan Panduranj Kagde Vs. Baldev Singh Gian Singh and Ors. and (1999) 3 SCC 754; G. Govindan Vs. New Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors. (Para 14 and 18) wherein the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Madineni Kondaiah (supra) has been approved. All these decisions relate to the Old Act, 1939 and Section 31 thereof but the observations and principles expounded apply to the New Act of 1988 also, as the provision is similar to Section 51 thereof.
Allahabad High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - R Roy - Full Document

Tarun Kumar Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Another on 17 July, 2015

8. Mr. Moitra argued that there is no absolute rule or law which provides that vehicle should invariably be given in custody of the person in whose name it is registered, but where the rival claimant has been able to establish superior claim or title over the vehicle, its custody can be entrusted to him. The Learned Magistrate has exactly done that after taking into consideration of all those documents and being satisfied that the vehicle has been transferred to the O.P. No.2 by agreement dated 3rd July, 2013, that he has acquired right to posses the vehicle and that the vehicle was seized from his possession and directed return of the vehicle to the O.P.No.2 by passing the impugned order which is an eloquent and reasoned order. He, thus concludingly submitted that the impugned order being just, proper and legal, no interference is warranted and the Revisional Application be dismissed and the stay order be vacated. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in AIR 1979 Karnataka 182 (Nemanna Yellappa Khanaji Vs. Syndicate Bank, Ankola & Ors.); AIR 1980 Supreme Court 871 (Panna Lal Vs. Chand Mal & Ors.); 1985 Cri L J 951 (V.Parakashan Vs. K.P. Pankajakshan & Anr.); 1995 (1) Crimes Orissa High Court 803 (Basanti Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa & Ors.); AIR 1998 Kerala 128 (Mathew Thankachan Vs. V. G.Manoharan & Ors.); 2001 Cri LJ 3024 (Prakash Tarachand Sakhre Vs. Ashok Pundloikrao Wajge & Anr.) and 2007 Cri L J 819 (Rabindra Kumar Pati Vs. State of Orissa & Anr.) in order to substantiate his submission.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - S S Sadhu - Full Document

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Thro-Nitinkumar ... vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 16 February, 2017

27 Normally the Courts will be inclined to prefer the person who was  having possession or custody just prior to the custody of Court. But that  is   not   a   rule   of   invariable   application.   Sometimes   the   origin   of   his  possession may be illegal just like the possession of a thief or receiver of  stolen   property.   In   such   cases   the   Court   may   not   prefer   him.   In  considering   the   question   the   Court   may   be   interested   in   giving  importance   to   the   right   to   possession.   In   the   absence   of   better   claim  Page 12 of 23 HC-NIC Page 12 of 23 Created On Sun Aug 13 10:48:54 IST 2017 R/SCR.A/7291/2016 JUDGMENT from   any   other   source   the   Court   may   prefer   the   person   who   had  possession. I referred to these aspects because in this case both the sides  have laid claim on the basis of ownership as well as right to possession.  [See: V. Parakashan vs. K.P. Pankajakshan, 1985 Cr.L.J. 951].
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Ankush vs Income Tax Department on 12 June, 2024

4. At the outset itself, it needs to be borne in mind that in a proceeding under Section 451 or Section 457 Cr.P.C, the Court only examines the person who is best entitled to the possession of the property and at that stage, cannot settle any right to ownership. Thus in a petition for interim custody, what must weigh with the court is not just about the ownership but who should be the rightful claimant as a temporary measure. Factors like the safety of the property, and the possibility of retrieving it without damage are all obvious considerations and the arrangement is done only for the preservation of the property until the conclusion of the trial. Reference to the decision in V.Prakashan v. K.P. Crl.M.C. No.1742/24 & Conn. Cases -:3:- Pankajakshan and Another 1985 (Cri. LJ 951) is relevant in this context.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B K Thomas - Full Document

Sangeeta vs State And Anr. on 22 January, 2007

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments reported as V. Parakashan v. K.P. Pankajakshan and Anr. 1985 Crl.L.J. 951; Sharif Mohammed v. State of H.P. 2003 Crl.L.J. 2911; M.S. Jaggi v. S. Mohapatra 1977 Crl.L.J. 1902 and submitted that although the order under Section 451 is by way of a temporary arrangement, during the pendency of enquiry or trial, nevertheless, the Court will have to consider some aspects of the merits and cannot act in an injudicious manner while dealing with property.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

B. Lalithchand Nahar vs State By Insepctor Of Police, Central ... on 30 July, 1990

6. He would further submit that the hirer, who is in the interim custody of the vehicle pursuant to the orders of Court, cannot be stated to be in custody and possession of the vehicle in legitimate exercise of his entitlement to the possession of the vehicle. But, if at all, it could be stated that his custody of the vehicle can be termed as custody held in trust for and on behalf of the Court which ordered for the return of the vehicle to his custody. He would also in support of such a submission rely upon the decision reported in 1985 Criminal Law Journal page 951. (Kerala (V. Parakashan v. K. P. Pankajakshan), wherein a learned Judge of the Kerala High Court laid down as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Santha Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 30 March, 2011

M.C. No.938 of 2011. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there is absolutely no evidence to show, either that second respondent is legally married to the son of the petitioner or that she was in possession and enjoyment of the Car and that petitioner is the legal heir of her deceased son entitled to own and possess the said Car. It is contended that even if contention of second respondent is accepted, petitioner is a co-owner of the Car and hence learned Magistrate should not have divested her of possession of the Car since admittedly police seized the Car from her. Learned counsel placing reliance on the decision in V.Prakashan v. K.P. Pankajakshan and Another (1985 Crl. L.J. 951) has contended that the proceedings are of a quasi civil nature and discretionary power should have been exercised by the learned Magistrate judicially. It is prayed that interim custody of the vehicle may be given to the petitioner.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document
1   2 Next