Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing K.K. Handique vs Member, Board Of Agricultural ... on 16 November, 1965

Sushila Devi vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 23 October, 1986

Interpreting the term " holds " in sections 12 and 13 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act (9 of 1939), their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Handique v. Member, Board of Agrl. IT [1966] 60 ITR 216 (SC) observed that the expression " holds " includes 2 twofold idea of the actual possession of a thing and also of being invested with a legal title.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - J S Verma - Full Document

The State Of Kerala And Ors. vs Annam And Ors. on 1 April, 1968

24. Mr. Velayudhan Nair wanted the expression 'holding' to be interpreted, 33 the Supreme Court has done in K. K, Handique v. Member, Board of Agricultural Income-tax, Assam, AIR 1966 SC 1191 to "include a two-fold idea of the actual possession of a thing and also of being invested with a legal title" and therefore to construe the expression in Section 3(2) (f) of the Act a "person holding in stock", to refer only to a person who has both possession and title to the paddy at hand, and to impose that limitation into the definition of a cultivator in the Levy Order. The Supreme Court has not said categorically that the expression 'holding' connotes possession and title, and has added to their observation cited by counsel, "Sometimes it is used only to mean actual possession". It cannot then be said on the authority of the Supreme Court that the word 'holds' includes invariably possession and title of the thing held. What it means in a particular context must necessarily depend upon the context itself. In a legislation designed to meet urgent public need for food-grams, the title to property in the paddy, which is a matter of individual concern between the rival claimants thereto, cannot enter seriously for consideration. Procurement for price paid involves little deprivation of property: it works only a conversion of the commodity into its equivalent in cash. In the circumstances of the Levy Order an investigation on ultimate title is neither relevant nor practical.
Kerala High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 11 - V B Eradi - Full Document

Ramnath Panda vs Commissioner Of Agricultural ... on 17 December, 1970

16. As agent holding property belonging to the principal or guardian holding property belonging to the minor has no right of ownership in the property. He cannot be said to be holding the property for the benefit of the principal or the minor. He holds the property on their behalf. The same view was taken in K. K. Handique v. Member, Board of Agricultural Income-tax, Assam, [1966] 60 I.T.R. 216 (S.C.) where similar provisions under the Assam Act were under examination. Sections 12 and 13 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act correspond to Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, Therein, their Lordships held that the expression "hold" in both the sections must be given the same meaning and it takes in the concept of title and possession in both.
Orissa High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Joaquim Mascarenhas Fiuza vs Smt. Jaime Rebello And Another on 22 August, 1986

The word "hold" includes a two-hold idea of the actual possession of a thing and also of being invested with a legal title, as observed by the Supreme Court in Handique v. Agri I.T. Board, Assam . It is a common fact that the petitioner is a foreign national and it is not denied that he has not made any declaration as required by sub-section (4). Therefore, he cannot be deemed to be holding any property in India at the present, particularly the suit property. This being the case, the courts below had correctly approached the problem and also correctly recorded a finding in that respect. In so far as possession is concerned, learned counsel contended that though the petitioner has approached the court with the case that he is a co-owner in possession of the suit property, the fact is that, in the course of the proceedings, he admitted that he is not in actual possession of the said property and that it is the Sociedate dos Gauncares de Cuncolim and Veroda that is in possession thereof. The suit is for a mandatory and perpetual injunction and not for restoration of possession and this being so, the relief of temporary injunction was not available to him irrespective of the provisions of section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. That apart, learned counsel further submitted that the construction in question had been already completed and, therefore, this revision has become infructuous.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Mangesh Janardhan Mohite (President) ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 2 November, 2001

Thus, in fact this judgment does not help MHADA in any way. In the present case, inasmuch as the acquired land vests in the State Government, the authority to deal with it in an appropriate manner will be with the State Government. The Act requires the acquired land to be used for discharging the functions, performing the duties and exercising the powers or to carry out any of its proposals, plans or projects as laid down under section 41(1). In the instant case, right from 1985 it was very clear to the State Government and MHADA that Pimpalwadi was one of the 34 large projects which were useful for accommodating dishoused occupants languishing in the transit camps. The property was made available to MHADA and Repair Board to carry out the project and they had taken a number of steps in that direction including getting the plans passed and issuing the advertisement for constructing the transit building on the site. It was therefore not permissible for MHADA and Repair Board to act contrary to this purpose. The land was made available to MHADA under section 42(3) for this purpose. The phrase "to make land available" occurring in section 42(3) and to hold it under section 28(3)(iii) cannot be read de hors these objectives to defeat them. Similarly there cannot be a quarrel with respect to interpretation of the phrase "to hold" as laid down in the cases of K.K. Handique and Manohar Ramkrishna (supra) relied upon by Mr. Naphade, or the dictionary meaning thereof emphasized by Mr. Singhvi, but it has to be seen in what context the verb "to hold" has occurred in section 28(3)(iii) with which we are concerned in the present matter. When one sees that, it is clear that it cannot mean an authority or right to hold it and to deal with it contrary to the purpose for which it is entrusted, and that too without any approval but in the teeth of opposition from the State Government.
Bombay High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 3 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Bhudan Singh And Anr. vs Nabi Bux And Anr. on 20 August, 1969

In K. K. Handique v. The Member, Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Assam this Court was called upon to consider the meaning of the word "holds" in Sections 12 and 13 of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act. Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Court observed that the expression "holds" includes a two-fold idea of the actual possession of a thing and also of being invested with a legal title though some times it is used only to mean actual possession. After reading Sections 12 and 13 together he observed that the word "holds" in those sections means holding by legal title.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 53 - Full Document

Budhan Singh & Anr vs Nabi Bux & Anr on 20 August, 1969

In K.K. Handique v. The Member, Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Assam(1) this Court was called upon to consider the meaning of the word "holds" in ss. 12 and 13 of' the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act. Subba Rao, J. (as he then was ) speaking for the Court observed that the expression "holds" includes a two-fold idea of the actual possession of a thing and also of being invested with a legal title though some times it is used only to mean actual possession. After reading ss. 12 and 13 together he observed that the word "holds" in those sections means holding by legal title.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 52 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Smt. Godawari Devi vs D.D.C. Deoria And Others on 15 September, 2023

In K. K. Handique v. Member, Board of Agricultural Income-tax, Assam, AIR 1966 SC 1191, this Court was called upon to consider the meaning of the word "holds" in Sections 12 and 13 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act. Subba Rao J.(as he then was), speaking for the Court, observed that the expression "holds" includes a twofold idea of the actual possession of a thing and also of being invested with a legal title though sometimes it is used only to mean actual possession. After reading Sections 12 and 13 together, he observed that the word "holds" in these sections mean holding by legal title.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next