Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.95 seconds)
Ashok Prasad Mukherjee @ Ashok ... vs Smt. Jyoti Prasad Mukherjee And Ors. on 2 December, 1997
cites
Section 49 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab vs Sri Hardyal on 10 April, 1985
15. Reliance of Mr. N.K. Prasad in the case of State of Punjab (supra), in my considered opinion, does not help the appellant inasmuch as, while holding that the arbitrators cannot extend the time at their own pleasure without consent to the parties of the agreement to enlarge time for making the award their Lordships considered the policy of law of Arbitration and held as follows:
Nagar Palika, Mirzapur vs The Mirzapur Elect. Supply Co. Ltd. on 28 August, 1990
14. Similar view has been expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagar Palika, Mirzapur v. Mirzapur Elect. Supply Co. Ltd., , by holding that the conduct of the parties is a major factor to waive the extension of time given by the Court.
Capt. (Now Major) Ashok Kshyap vs Mrs. Sudha Vasisht & Anr on 4 February, 1987
32. On the other hand, in the instant appeal, no such absolute ownership has been created by the arbitrators. The aforesaid decision in the case of Sheonarain Lal (supra) again relied by their Lordships in the case of Ashok Kashyap v. Sudha Vasisht, , where it has been held that the award, which merely provides that some right could be created in future by means of a document to be executed, was not compulsorily registrable.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Sardar Singh vs Krishna Devi on 26 April, 1994
While considering various decisions of its own Court, the Apex Court in the case of Sardar Singh v. Krishna Devi, , inter alia, held that the unregistered award per se is not inadmissible in evidence and it is a valid award and not a mere waste paper. It creates rights and obligations between the parties thereto and is conclusive between the parties. It can be set up as a defence as evidence of resolving the disputes and acceptance of it by the parties. If it is a foundation, creating right, title and interest in praesenti or future or extinguishes the right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- or above it is compulsorily registrable and non-registration render it inadmissible in evidence. However, their Lordships further held that 'if it contains a mere declaration of a preexisting right, it is not creating a right title and interest in praesenti, in which event it is not a compulsorily registrable instrument. It can be looked into as evidence of the conduct of the parties of accepting the award, acting upon it that they have pre-existing right, title or interest in the immovable property.'
(Emphasis is mine)
Kale & Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ors on 21 January, 1976
In this context, the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Kale v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, , may be looked into. Their Lordships considering the import of a family arrangement, have, inter alia, observed as follows: