Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)
Tummala Suresh Chandra Chatterjee vs G.Sita Ram Chander on 6 September, 2022 cites

Rajendra Pratap Singh vs Rameshwar Prasad on 28 October, 1998

22. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the judgment of Apex Court reported in Veena Singh (dead) through LRs. V. District Registrar/Addl. Collector (FR)1, wherein, their Lordships have considered the meaning and expression of "execution" at paras 39 onwards and further at para 49, while dealing with the meaning and expression of the word "execution", their Lordships have dealt with Section 35(1)(a) of Registration Act, Section (2)(12) of Stamp Act, Black's Law dictionary, Mulla's Registration Act, S.P.Sen Gupta's commentary, Sarkar's Law of Evidence and also on the precedents in Rajendra Pratap Singh v. Rameshwar Prasad [(1998) 7 SCC 602], N.M.Ramchandraiah v. State of Karnataka [2007 SCC Online 1 2022 LawSuit(SC) 602 16 GAC, J A.S.Nos.559 of 2009 and batch Karnataka 192], Banasethappa Lalji Chikkanna v. District Registrar [1995 SCC Online Karnataka 132], Sayyapariju Surya v. Ramchandra Prasad Singh and another [1949 SCC Online Madras 227], Jogesh Prasad Singh & another v. Ramchandra Prasad Singh & another [1950 SCC Online Patna 39] and also on many other precedents and held that "execution of a document does not stand admitted merely because a person admits to have signed it".
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Sri. N.M. Ramachandraiah S/O Magirowda ... vs The State Of Karnataka, Department Of ... on 19 April, 2007

22. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the judgment of Apex Court reported in Veena Singh (dead) through LRs. V. District Registrar/Addl. Collector (FR)1, wherein, their Lordships have considered the meaning and expression of "execution" at paras 39 onwards and further at para 49, while dealing with the meaning and expression of the word "execution", their Lordships have dealt with Section 35(1)(a) of Registration Act, Section (2)(12) of Stamp Act, Black's Law dictionary, Mulla's Registration Act, S.P.Sen Gupta's commentary, Sarkar's Law of Evidence and also on the precedents in Rajendra Pratap Singh v. Rameshwar Prasad [(1998) 7 SCC 602], N.M.Ramchandraiah v. State of Karnataka [2007 SCC Online 1 2022 LawSuit(SC) 602 16 GAC, J A.S.Nos.559 of 2009 and batch Karnataka 192], Banasethappa Lalji Chikkanna v. District Registrar [1995 SCC Online Karnataka 132], Sayyapariju Surya v. Ramchandra Prasad Singh and another [1949 SCC Online Madras 227], Jogesh Prasad Singh & another v. Ramchandra Prasad Singh & another [1950 SCC Online Patna 39] and also on many other precedents and held that "execution of a document does not stand admitted merely because a person admits to have signed it".
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 18 - N Kumar - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Hindustan Development Board Ltd. on 25 May, 1960

23. The learned Senior Counsel has further urged that Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act deals with what are "agreements" and "contracts" and further "consent" is dealt with under Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act and contended that as per the precedent in State of Punjab v. Hindustan Development Board Ltd., Amritser2, wherein, their Lordships have held at para 6 that "it is the essence of the contract that there should be an aggregatio mentium, the meeting of minds of the contracting parties. In a case where there is no consensus ad idem as to the making of charges of windows of altered designs, the plaintiff was not entitled to claim charges at the enhanced rates demanded by him". 2 AIR 1960 PUNJAB 585 17 GAC, J A.S.Nos.559 of 2009 and batch
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 Next