Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 114 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Narendra Kante vs Anuradha Kante & Ors on 15 December, 2009

Rom Industries Ltd vs Babu Lal And Others on 14 March, 2012

In this regard beneficial reference of the observations made by the Apex Court in case of Hansa Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kidarsons Industries (P) Ltd. (2006) 8 SCC, 531 and in case of Narendra Kante Vs. Anuradha Kante & Ors. 2010 (2) SCC, 77, is required to be made. In view of the settled legal position, the document relied upon by the plaintiffs which according to them was family settlement arrived at between NLD Group and BLD Group on 20.12.07 required registration as it was not a memorandum prepared after the family settlement. It is also equally settled legal position that the document requiring compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act if not registered, could not be received in evidence in view of Section 49 of the said Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Sheoraj vs M/S Acoord Infra Structure Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 11 February, 2011

In Narendra Kant (supra) the High Court had in a Misc. Appeal observed that in case injunction was granted, it would be the defendants who will suffer irreparable loss and injury. It was observed that defendant no. 10 (the transferee from respondent-defendant no. 1 and 2) had acquired a right to the suit property. He was therefore allowed to carry out construction activities over the disputed land but was restrained from alienating or transferring the property in question or from creating any third party rights during the pendency of the civil suit. The trial court was directed to decide the suit expeditiously, and to dispose of the same within six months. The Supreme Court did not interfere with the order except by directing that the co-sharers to the suit property shall not create any third party right or encumber or transfer their respective suit property in any manner and all transactions undertaken in respect thereof shall be subject to the final decision in the suit.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Dhruva Enclave Pvt Ltd vs Babu Lal And Others on 14 March, 2012

In this regard beneficial reference of the observations made by the Apex Court in case of Hansa Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kidarsons Industries (P) Ltd. (2006) 8 SCC, 531 and in case of Narendra Kante Vs. Anuradha Kante & Ors. 2010 (2) SCC, 77, is required to be made. In view of the settled legal position, the document relied upon by the plaintiffs which according to them was family settlement arrived at between NLD Group and BLD Group on 20.12.07 required registration as it was not a memorandum prepared after the family settlement. It is also equally settled legal position that the document requiring compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act if not registered, could not be received in evidence in view of Section 49 of the said Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Jhankar Motels Pvt Ltd vs Babu Lal And Others on 14 March, 2012

In this regard beneficial reference of the observations made by the Apex Court in case of Hansa Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kidarsons Industries (P) Ltd. (2006) 8 SCC, 531 and in case of Narendra Kante Vs. Anuradha Kante & Ors. 2010 (2) SCC, 77, is required to be made. In view of the settled legal position, the document relied upon by the plaintiffs which according to them was family settlement arrived at between NLD Group and BLD Group on 20.12.07 required registration as it was not a memorandum prepared after the family settlement. It is also equally settled legal position that the document requiring compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act if not registered, could not be received in evidence in view of Section 49 of the said Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Babu Lal And Others vs Niranjan Lalji And Others on 14 March, 2012

In this regard beneficial reference of the observations made by the Apex Court in case of Hansa Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kidarsons Industries (P) Ltd. (2006) 8 SCC, 531 and in case of Narendra Kante Vs. Anuradha Kante & Ors. 2010 (2) SCC, 77, is required to be made. In view of the settled legal position, the document relied upon by the plaintiffs which according to them was family settlement arrived at between NLD Group and BLD Group on 20.12.07 required registration as it was not a memorandum prepared after the family settlement. It is also equally settled legal position that the document requiring compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act if not registered, could not be received in evidence in view of Section 49 of the said Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

M/S Pyare Niranjan Lal And Co And Others vs Babu Lal And Others on 14 March, 2012

In this regard beneficial reference of the observations made by the Apex Court in case of Hansa Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kidarsons Industries (P) Ltd. (2006) 8 SCC, 531 and in case of Narendra Kante Vs. Anuradha Kante & Ors. 2010 (2) SCC, 77, is required to be made. In view of the settled legal position, the document relied upon by the plaintiffs which according to them was family settlement arrived at between NLD Group and BLD Group on 20.12.07 required registration as it was not a memorandum prepared after the family settlement. It is also equally settled legal position that the document requiring compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act if not registered, could not be received in evidence in view of Section 49 of the said Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

M/S Raghuvar India Ltd vs Babu Lal And Others on 14 March, 2012

In this regard beneficial reference of the observations made by the Apex Court in case of Hansa Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kidarsons Industries (P) Ltd. (2006) 8 SCC, 531 and in case of Narendra Kante Vs. Anuradha Kante & Ors. 2010 (2) SCC, 77, is required to be made. In view of the settled legal position, the document relied upon by the plaintiffs which according to them was family settlement arrived at between NLD Group and BLD Group on 20.12.07 required registration as it was not a memorandum prepared after the family settlement. It is also equally settled legal position that the document requiring compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act if not registered, could not be received in evidence in view of Section 49 of the said Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

M/S Bhagwati Agro Products Ltd And Other vs Babu Lal And Others on 14 March, 2012

In this regard beneficial reference of the observations made by the Apex Court in case of Hansa Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kidarsons Industries (P) Ltd. (2006) 8 SCC, 531 and in case of Narendra Kante Vs. Anuradha Kante & Ors. 2010 (2) SCC, 77, is required to be made. In view of the settled legal position, the document relied upon by the plaintiffs which according to them was family settlement arrived at between NLD Group and BLD Group on 20.12.07 required registration as it was not a memorandum prepared after the family settlement. It is also equally settled legal position that the document requiring compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act if not registered, could not be received in evidence in view of Section 49 of the said Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next