Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)
M/S. Dunlop India Limited vs Salasar Towers Pvt. Ltd on 17 March, 2026 cites

Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011

Though, the presence of Salasar is noted. Eyelid relies on an unregistered agreement for sale. It is well settled that an unregistered agreement for sale does not confer title. The judgment delivered in the case of Kanta Devi Berlia (supra), Suraj Lamp & Industries (supra), Ram Baran Prasad (supra), Narandas Karsondas (supra) and Ramesh Chand (supra) are 21 IA No.CA/61/2019 with IA No. CA/83/2021 with IA No. CA/386/2024 in CP 233 of 2008 relied on. This apart, though, Eyelid has claimed the agreement for sale is backed up with a consideration of Rs. 8 Crores, such payment on the own showing of Eyelid was not directly paid by Eyelid. The transactions relied on as has been disclosed in an affidavit in reply affirmed by one Ritabrata Adak on 16th March, 2022 would demonstrate that payments have been made from India Finance Limited through a series of transaction involving Dunlop to India Finance as well. Mr. Banerji has however, drawn the attention of this court to the bank statements and the balance sheet of Dunlop and has attempted to highlight that these transactions are circular transactions, which had been entered with the object of siphoning away funds from Dunlop. Although, the Eyelid has relied on a document dated 3rd August, 2006 authorising sale/disposal of the companies non-core assets at Kings Court, 46B, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata, however, the authenticity and/or validity of such document is also not without doubt especially having regard to the disclosure made by the official liquidator that at the time of taking over possession of the property of Dunlop, Eyelid was nowhere to be seen.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1760 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Ram Baran Prosad And Anr. vs Ram Mohit Hazra And Anr. on 18 November, 1959

Though, the presence of Salasar is noted. Eyelid relies on an unregistered agreement for sale. It is well settled that an unregistered agreement for sale does not confer title. The judgment delivered in the case of Kanta Devi Berlia (supra), Suraj Lamp & Industries (supra), Ram Baran Prasad (supra), Narandas Karsondas (supra) and Ramesh Chand (supra) are 21 IA No.CA/61/2019 with IA No. CA/83/2021 with IA No. CA/386/2024 in CP 233 of 2008 relied on. This apart, though, Eyelid has claimed the agreement for sale is backed up with a consideration of Rs. 8 Crores, such payment on the own showing of Eyelid was not directly paid by Eyelid. The transactions relied on as has been disclosed in an affidavit in reply affirmed by one Ritabrata Adak on 16th March, 2022 would demonstrate that payments have been made from India Finance Limited through a series of transaction involving Dunlop to India Finance as well. Mr. Banerji has however, drawn the attention of this court to the bank statements and the balance sheet of Dunlop and has attempted to highlight that these transactions are circular transactions, which had been entered with the object of siphoning away funds from Dunlop. Although, the Eyelid has relied on a document dated 3rd August, 2006 authorising sale/disposal of the companies non-core assets at Kings Court, 46B, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata, however, the authenticity and/or validity of such document is also not without doubt especially having regard to the disclosure made by the official liquidator that at the time of taking over possession of the property of Dunlop, Eyelid was nowhere to be seen.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 67 - Full Document

Narandas Karsondas vs S.A. Kamtam & Anr on 7 December, 1976

Though, the presence of Salasar is noted. Eyelid relies on an unregistered agreement for sale. It is well settled that an unregistered agreement for sale does not confer title. The judgment delivered in the case of Kanta Devi Berlia (supra), Suraj Lamp & Industries (supra), Ram Baran Prasad (supra), Narandas Karsondas (supra) and Ramesh Chand (supra) are 21 IA No.CA/61/2019 with IA No. CA/83/2021 with IA No. CA/386/2024 in CP 233 of 2008 relied on. This apart, though, Eyelid has claimed the agreement for sale is backed up with a consideration of Rs. 8 Crores, such payment on the own showing of Eyelid was not directly paid by Eyelid. The transactions relied on as has been disclosed in an affidavit in reply affirmed by one Ritabrata Adak on 16th March, 2022 would demonstrate that payments have been made from India Finance Limited through a series of transaction involving Dunlop to India Finance as well. Mr. Banerji has however, drawn the attention of this court to the bank statements and the balance sheet of Dunlop and has attempted to highlight that these transactions are circular transactions, which had been entered with the object of siphoning away funds from Dunlop. Although, the Eyelid has relied on a document dated 3rd August, 2006 authorising sale/disposal of the companies non-core assets at Kings Court, 46B, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata, however, the authenticity and/or validity of such document is also not without doubt especially having regard to the disclosure made by the official liquidator that at the time of taking over possession of the property of Dunlop, Eyelid was nowhere to be seen.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 236 - A N Ray - Full Document
1   2 Next