Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Prataprai Trumbaklal Mehta vs Jayant Nemchand Shah And Another on 14 June, 1991

Samina Arif Khan Alias Dhanlaxmi ... vs Dhanlaxmi Chandu Devrukar@ Samina Arif ... on 18 February, 2022

6.1 Rule 11(9) of the Rules provides that every notary shall grant a receipt for the fees and charges realized and maintain a register showing all the fees and charges realized for every single notarial act. However, it has been observed that notaries do not follow this mandate and default in issuing receipts. This was observed by the Bombay High Court in Prataprai Trumbaklal Mehta vs Jayant Nemchand Shah and Anr. ( Supra ) 6.2 It is therefore recommended that the proposed Application / Portal provide for means to make online payments to Notaries. Further, the proposed Application / Portal must mandatorily issue an electronic receipt for every notarial act undertaken.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

V.Venkatasamy vs S.Lakshmi on 11 September, 2014

12.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, as per the decision of the AIR 1996 Bombay 296 (Prataprai Trambaklal Mehta v. Jayant Nemchand Shah and others etc.), in para-13, wherein it has been held that once the sale deed has been executed, it is related back to the date of sale agreement on which the suit is based. The conveyance registered between interregnum period is non est in the eye of law. According to the revision petitioner, sale agreement was executed on 30.08.1994, but whereas in the plaint in O.S.No.3 of 2012, it was stated that Sophia Parveen sold the property on 26.10.1994 to one Sanjiappa, who in turn, sold the same in favour of Lakshmi Ammal on 24.03.2004 and 31.05.2004. It is an admitted fact that on the date of filing C.S.No.287 of 2009 on 19.02.2009, the above three sale deeds came into existence in respect of the suit property and those subsequent purchasers were not added as parties to the earlier suit in C.S.No.287 of 2009. Hence, prima facie, the decree is not binding upon the subsequent purchasers. So the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document

Cnr. Dlct020131162016 M/S Hr ... vs M/S Vikas Vidyutikaran & Anr. Page 1 Of 24 on 28 May, 2022

12.14. Upon similar facts, it has been held in Prataprai Trumbaklal Mehta vs Jayant Nemchand Shah 11 that it would not be possible to raise the presumption u/s 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or lay any evidentiary/probative value on a document bearing the seal of Notary if it is ex facie apparent therein that the same was not affixed after taking due care by the concerned Notary, which includes inter alia making an entry in the register of Notaries.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Vinay Kumar C.H vs Sri Shivashankar B on 26 June, 2023

In support of his submissions he has relied on judgment reported in AIR 1992 BOMBAY 149 in the case of Prataprai Trumbaklal Mehtha Vs Jayanth Nemchand Shah and anr and the judgment of Punjab and Hariyana in CRM- M 29700/2008 in the case M/s Sri. Manohar International Vs Neelam Rani Jain. I have gone through the said judgments. The facts of the said judgment is not applicable to the present case. No doubt the notary public who has notarized the xerox copy of the agreement has violated the notary rules without verifying the original has notarized the document. But the said reasons is alone is not sufficient to refused the permission to lead secondary evidence. At the time of hearing the accused has produced xerox copy of the alleged agreement dated 9.10.2018. Whether the said document is a forged one or not has to be looked into at the time of final disposal of the case. At this stage 7 it is not appropriate to give findings on the said document. As referred above section 65 of the Evidence Act give an opportunity to lead secondary evidence if necessary requirements are complied.
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next