Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.63 seconds)Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964
Radhakisan Laxminarayan Toshniwal vs Shridhar Ramchandra Alshi And Others on 23 April, 1960
It is interesting to note that in that case the decision of the
earlier Constitution Bench of this Court in Radhakisan Laxminarayan
Toshniwal (supra) was not brought to the court's notice. Hon'ble the Chief
Justice B.P. Sinha was a party to both the decisions. His Lordship,
therefore, presumably was aware of the distinctive features of both the cases.
K.J.Nathan vs S. V. Maruty Reddy And Others on 11 February, 1964
The question is no longer res integra in view of a large number of
decisions of Privy Council as also this Court including Kalyanasundaram
Pillai v. Karuppa Mooppanar [AIR 1927 PC 42], Venkatasubba Shrinivas
Hegde v. Subba Rama Hegde [AIR 1928 PC 86], Radhakisan Laxminarayan
Toshniwal v. Shridhar Ramchandra Alshi and Others [(1961) 1 SCR 248],
K.J. Nathan v. S.V. Maruthi Rao and Other [(1964) 6 SCR 727], Nanda
Ballabh Gururani v. Smt. Maqbool Begun, [(1980) 3 SCC 346] and Thakur
Kishan Singh (Dead) v. Arvind Kumar [(1994) 6 SCC 591].
Nanda Ballabh Gururani vs Smt. Maqbool Begum on 29 April, 1980
The question is no longer res integra in view of a large number of
decisions of Privy Council as also this Court including Kalyanasundaram
Pillai v. Karuppa Mooppanar [AIR 1927 PC 42], Venkatasubba Shrinivas
Hegde v. Subba Rama Hegde [AIR 1928 PC 86], Radhakisan Laxminarayan
Toshniwal v. Shridhar Ramchandra Alshi and Others [(1961) 1 SCR 248],
K.J. Nathan v. S.V. Maruthi Rao and Other [(1964) 6 SCR 727], Nanda
Ballabh Gururani v. Smt. Maqbool Begun, [(1980) 3 SCC 346] and Thakur
Kishan Singh (Dead) v. Arvind Kumar [(1994) 6 SCC 591].
Thakur Kishan Singh vs Arvind Kumar on 7 September, 1994
The question is no longer res integra in view of a large number of
decisions of Privy Council as also this Court including Kalyanasundaram
Pillai v. Karuppa Mooppanar [AIR 1927 PC 42], Venkatasubba Shrinivas
Hegde v. Subba Rama Hegde [AIR 1928 PC 86], Radhakisan Laxminarayan
Toshniwal v. Shridhar Ramchandra Alshi and Others [(1961) 1 SCR 248],
K.J. Nathan v. S.V. Maruthi Rao and Other [(1964) 6 SCR 727], Nanda
Ballabh Gururani v. Smt. Maqbool Begun, [(1980) 3 SCC 346] and Thakur
Kishan Singh (Dead) v. Arvind Kumar [(1994) 6 SCC 591].
Ram Saran Lall And Others vs Mst. Domini Kuer And Others on 27 April, 1961
Mr. S. Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant, at the outset, submitted that the order the High Court as regards
interpretation of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 holding that the
sale deed registered in favour of the said Srinivas by the First Respondent on
13.6.1991 would be effective from 7.2.1987 is not correct being contrary to
a 5-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Ram Saran Lall and Others v. Mst
Domini Kuer and Others [(1962) 2 SCR 474]. It was urged that the High
Court committed a manifest error in foreclosing the Appellant's right in
respect of plot No. 39 by directing him to approach the Deputy Registrar
seeking for the remedies afresh.
Balvant N. Viswamitra And Ors vs Yadav Sadashiv Mule (D) Through Lrs. And ... on 13 August, 2004
[See Balvant N. Viswamitra and
Others v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) Through LRS. and Others (2004) 8
SCC 706]
Furthermore, the said award was put in execution. The Executing
Court in view of title passed in favour of the said Srinivas and consequent
acquisition of title by him in terms of the deed of sale executed by him in
favour of the Second Respondent herein was entitled to enter into the
question as to whether the said award was capable of being executed. As the
High Court rightly found that the Second Respondent has acquired a valid
title with effect from a date prior to making of the award, the same became
inexecutable. If the said award was not capable of being executed, the
remedy of the Appellant evidently lies to ventilate his grievance as regards
allotment of plot by initiating a different proceeding.