Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.79 seconds)
Dr. Rakesh Verma vs Shri Vidya Sagar Bhagat (Since ... on 10 June, 2022 cites

Sh. Saras Ram vs Sh. Bhagat Ram on 17 May, 2016

130. I have already reproduced the pleadings of the parties qua this document. Even in the replication filed by the defendant, against the WS to the original plaint, Dr. Rakesh Verma merely stated that the handing over of the possession was duly recorded in writing, however, no details of document dated 02.03.1988 (Ex.PW1/9) was given. It is not even mentioned in the replication as to on which date the handing over of the possession was duly recorded in writing. It is also noteworthy that the document dated 02.03.1988 (Ex.PW1/9) was not filed on record even with the replication which was filed on 05.02.1990 but after almost more than two months of filing of the replication along with index of additional documents dated 23.04.1990. The explanation put forth by Dr. Rakesh Verma that the document dated 02.03.1988 (Ex.PW1/9) was not filed along with the initial plaint in the hope that Sh. V. S. Bhagat would not contradict his case is highly unbelievable and does not inspire the confidence of the court.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - S Sharma - Full Document

Dr Rakesh Varma vs Vidya Sagar Bhagat (Deceased) Thr Lrs & ... on 5 January, 2022

13. In his written statement, defendant no. 1 has preliminarily objected to the suit on the ground that there was no existing valid and binding agreement between him and the plaintiff and accordingly, there is no question of specific performance of any agreement. The plaintiff neither has any cause of action nor any locus standi for filing the present suit. The suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees as the market value of the suit land is more than Rs. 18 lacs. As per the mandatory provisions of section 269 UC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, every CS: 612619/2016 Dr Rakesh Verma vs Vidya Sagar Bhagat and another Page no. 6 of 89 agreement to sell an immovable property for a consideration exceeding Rs. 10 lacs has to be in writing and a statement in Form No. 37­I, prescribed under Rule 48­L of the Income Tax Rules is to be filed with the appropriate authority appointed under the Act within 15 days from the date of entering into an agreement to sale. The oral agreement to sale as alleged by the plaintiff is prohibited and barred under Chapter XX­C of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - P M Singh - Full Document

Sh. Madhu Vijayan And Anr. vs Sh. S.G. Ravishankar on 10 March, 2006

61. PW2 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Dhingra is a property dealer who deposed that the transaction of sale of property in question between Sh. V. S. Bhagat/Defendant no. 1 and Sh. Suresh Mansharamani/plaintiff was done through him. 4­5 days prior to the execution of agreement, a sum of Rs. 50,000/­ was paid in cash by plaintiff to defendant no. 1. Total sale consideration was settled at Rs. 16.15 lacs. The agreement was signed by the parties in his presence. A cheque for Rs. 50,000/­ was paid on the date of agreement to sell by plaintiff to defendant no. 1. On 4­5 occasions, he had gone to meet defendant no. 1 and on 2 occasions, plaintiff accompanied him. They requested defendant no. 1 to complete all the formalities for sale of the property in favour of the plaintiff on which defendant no. 1 informed that he was under process of completion of formalities and it will take some time.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next