Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.29 seconds)
M.Devadoss vs P.Bhagyalakshmi (Died) on 15 November, 2022 cites

Chinde Gowda vs Puttamma on 14 December, 2007

34. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in Chinde Gowda's case (cited supra), relates to the case of the Government Grant. There is no quarrel over the proposition that while a Grant is being made by the Government, the imposition of the restrictive covenant on the grantee is binding and valid and any transaction in violation of the said restrictive covenant is not only void but will also entitle the Government to resume the land or the property in question. But, however, the said proposition is not applicable to the instant case which is a sale transaction and in a sale transaction where the Housing Board sells the property for market value, such a restrictive covenant cannot be imposed and the covenant imposed is not any restriction on alienation but is only a right of pre-emption, which can be exercised only by the Housing Board. Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard are without any merits. Accordingly, I answer this question in favour of the respondents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 12 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) Represented By Its ... vs Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society ... on 6 September, 2002

22. The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and Ors. versus Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Ors4morefully relying upon 2 (1993) 1 SCC 589 3 (2007) 12 SCC 618 4 (2014) 2 SCC 269 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No.13 of 39 Appeal Suit Nos.79 & 80 of 2006 paragraph no.15 to contend that the plaintiff has to prove his own case and cannot get the relief of declaration on the weakness of the case of the defendants and submitted that without independently proving his title, the plaintiff is only harping upon the fact that the first defendant did not let in evidence. For all the above reasons, the learned counsel would pray that the appeal suits be allowed.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 57 - Cited by 202 - B S Reddy - Full Document

K.Krishnan vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 20 June, 2019

The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the order of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) number 13896 of 2019 in K.Krishnan vs. the Inspector General of Registration and another, more specifically paragraph Nos.14 to 16 to contend that the non- registration will not have any effect on the title and once the decree which is granted in the present suit is registered, even the anomaly of non registration will be cured.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 13 - R S Kumar - Full Document

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors on 6 December, 2004

29. The learned Senior Counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another vs. Indusind Bank and ors8 , relying upon paragraph nos.10 to 15, 17 to 20 that the Power of Attorney Agent can depose only in respect of the acts of 6 AIR 1966 SC 1300 7 100 Law Weekly 95 8 (2005) 2 SCC 217 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No.18 of 39 Appeal Suit Nos.79 & 80 of 2006 the principle done by him. For the same proposition, the learned Senior Counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Man Kaur (dead) by lrs vs. Hartar Singh Sangha9, more specifically paragraph nos.11 to 18.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 1219 - H K Sema - Full Document

Balraj Taneja & Anr vs Sunil Madan & Anr on 8 September, 1999

Further, even in the written statement, it was not verified by the first defendant. The first defendant also did not get into the box and adduce evidence. Therefore, the very written statement is improperly verified and is not even verified in terms of Order VI Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as relied upon by the learned senior counsel in Balraj Taneja's case (cited supra) applies to the present case in all force. Similarly, the dictum of the various judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the proposition that the evidence of D.W.1 is no evidence at all, as he had no personal knowledge about the transactions about the entering into Partnership and Dissolution deed etc., and thus, as far as this question as to the proof of Ex.A2 and Ex.A5 are concerned, even though an ostensible contest is made by the defendants, it is a case of no contest. In any event as found by me supra, the plaintiffs have also proved their case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No.22 of 39 Appeal Suit Nos.79 & 80 of 2006 beyond doubt and accordingly, this question is answered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 582 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Satish Kumar & Ors vs Surinder Kumar & Ors on 27 September, 1968

“5. The word "not" is a slip here. The parties conceded before the learned Single Judge that the award deals with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No.23 of 39 Appeal Suit Nos.79 & 80 of 2006 immovable property worth above Rs. 100/-. So if it is found by us that the award purports to create rights in. the appellant over immovable property, it would require registration under s. 17 Registration Act . (See Satish Kumar and others v. Surinder Kumar and others (1). On the dissolution of the partnership or with the retirement of a partner from the partnership the share of the partner in the partnership assets is equal to the value of his share in the net partnership assets after deduction of all liabilities and prior charges. Even during the subsistance of the partnership, he may assign his share to another partner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 117 - S M Sikri - Full Document
1   2 Next