Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.51 seconds)The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 17 December, 1990
In MCD vs. Pramod Kumar Gupta AIR (1991) SC 401, Supreme
Court, inter alia, held as under:-
Asha M. Jain vs The Canara Bank And Ors. on 15 October, 2001
"15. Therefore, a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does
not convey any title nor create any interest in an
immovable property. The observations by the
Delhi High Court, in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank:
Century Spinning & Manufacturing ... vs The Ulhasnagar- Municipal Council And ... on 27 February, 1970
The appellant Shri Raghu Nayyar has relied upon the decision of
Supreme Court in Century Spinning & Manufacturing Company Ltd.
and Anr vs. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and Anr. (1970) 3 SCR
858, where the Court, inter alia, held that a party claiming to be aggrieved
by the action of a public body or authority on the plea that the action is
unlawful, high-handed, arbitrary or unjust, is entitled to a hearing of its
petition on the merits. In the case before Supreme Court, the petition filed
by the appellant company did not raise any complicated questions of fact
LPA 1163-64/2007 and 1171-72/2007 Page 16 of 17
for determination and the Apex Court was of the view that the claim of the
appellant could not be characterized as frivolous, vexatious or unjust.
Noticing that the High Court had given no reason for dismissing the
petition in limine and on consideration of the averments made in the
petition and the material placed before it, the Court was of the view that
the appellants were entitled to have its grievance tried. However, in the
case before us since such disputed questions of fact are involved, which
cannot be decided without recording of evidence, an exercise which cannot
be undertaken by a Writ Court, the Civil Court, in our opinion, is the only
appropriate forum for adjudication on the claim for grant of compensation.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 53A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011
8. The next question which comes up for consideration is as to whether
LPA 1163-64/2007 and 1171-72/2007 Page 7 of 17
an instrument of sale of immovable property was executed by the erstwhile
owners, in favour of Shri Raghu Nayyar and Smt. Seema Nayyar or not.
Admittedly, no sale deed in favour of these appellants was executed. The
documents executed in their favour were Power of Attorney, Agreement to
Sell, etc. The question for consideration, therefore, would be whether the
documents such as Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, either
individually or collectively, can be said to be an instrument of sale of
immovable property or not. The power of attorney, whereby a person
authorizes another person to do certain acts and deeds on his behalf is
certainly not an instrument of transfer of immovable property since even if
the Power of Attorney relates to an immovable property the ownership of
that immovable property continues to vest in the principal and is not
transferred to the attorney. This issue was considered by Supreme Court in
Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 2012(1)
SCC 656 and the following view was taken:-