Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.31 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors vs Smt.Kamal Saroj Mahajan&Anr on 11 March, 2005
27 Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon judgment Special Leave
Petition (C) No. 20914 of 2004 titled as Charanjit Lal Mehra and Ors.
Vs. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and Anr. decided on 11.03.2005
wherein it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
para 12 :
Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Pahwa International Pvt. Ltd. on 21 August, 2009
However, it is not disputed by ld.
counsel for the defendant that this AD card does not bear the correct
address of the defendant. In these circumstances, when the address of
the defendant is not disputed then presumption has to be drawn that
the postal department which is a public authority, carried out its
function in accordance with the law and in due discharge of the public
duties. Therefore, dispute of the service of notice as raised by ld.
counsel for the defendant is not going to help the defendant.
Moreover, ld. counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon case 2009 VIII AD
(DELHI) 535 titled as Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Pahwa International Pvt. Ltd. where in para 13 it has been
observed:
Section 49 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Food Corporation Of India & Ors vs M/S.Babulal Agrawal on 5 January, 2004
19 During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the defendant
relied upon case R.F.A. No. 1995/2005 titled as Sri. J.C.
Umashankar Vs. M/s Bata (India) Limited and
MANU/SC/0013/2004 titled as Food Corporation of India and
Ors. Vs. Babulal Agarwal and submitted that in view of the law laid
down in these judgments, the defendant is having a right over the suit
Civil Suit no.: 103/2008 Page 12 of 23
property in terms of lease deed. During the course of arguments, it is
submitted by ld. counsel for the defendant that since the defendant is
exercising the rights over the suit property upon an unregistered lease
deed. But in view of the law laid down in these judgments, it was not a
case where upon the same document which is not a registered one the
parties were exercising their rights. Therefore, the facts of these
judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
20 Now a contention is raised by ld. counsel for the defendant that
in the written statement, the service of notice upon the defendant has
been denied.