Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.52 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 230A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
S.F. Munuswami Gounder And Ors. vs Erusa Gounder on 22 January, 1974
In S.F. Munuswami v. Erusa Gounder, AIR 1975 Madras 25, it has been held by a Division Bench that a transferee in possession under Section 53A of the T. P. Act can ask for injunction protecting his rights. He can claim injunction against the transferor restraining him from interfering with his possession.
Maruti Gurappa And Anr. vs Krishna Bala And Anr. on 11 March, 1965
Similarly in Maruti v. Krishna, AIR 1967 Bom 34, it has been held that the plaintiff can take advantage of Section 53A.
Dharmaji Alias Baban Bajirao Shinde vs Jagannath Shankar Jadhav Since ... on 3 January, 1994
In Dharmaji v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 Bom 254, it has been observed : "if this right as a shield is available to him as a defendant, there is no justification for a view that it would be denied to him even if by force of circumstances he as a law abiding citizen is compelled to approach the Court as a plaintiff to use that shield. The transferee is entitled to resist any attempt on the part of the transferor to disturb transferee's lawful possession under the contract of sale and his position either as a plaintiff or as a defendant should make no difference. Contrary interpretation viz. the transferee can use the shield only as a defendant and not as a plaintiff, would defeat the very spirit of Section 53A, for it will be possible for an overpowering transferor to forcibly dispossess the transferee even against the covenants in the contract and compel him to go to the Court as a plaintiff.
Probodh Kumar Das vs The Dantmara Tea Co. Ltd. on 10 October, 1939
This view is primarily based on the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Probodh Kumar (AIR 1940 PC 1) (supra) which has been discussed above. The view taken by Nagpur High Court and affirmed by this Court, as discussed above, must be followed.
Stoneware Pipe And Sanitary Fitting ... vs The State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 24 September, 1971
In Stoneware Pipe v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1972 Raj 83, a contrary view has been taken and it has been held that Section 53A does not give a right of action for a suit, including so-called defensive suit for restoration of possession forcibly taken by the transferor or for injunction.
Delhi Motor Company And Ors vs U.A. Basrurkar And Ors on 8 January, 1968
This question arose before the Supreme Court in Delhi Motor Company v. V. A. Basrurkar, AIR 1968 SC 794, but it was left open.
Thiru John & Anr vs Returning Officer & Ors on 12 April, 1977
It is well settled that a party's admission as defined in Sections 17 to 20 fulfilling the requirements of Section 21, Evidence Act is substantive evidence proprio vigore. An admission if clearly and unequivocally made is the best evidence against the party making it and though not conclusive, shifts the onus on to the maker on the principle that "what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so and until the presumption is rebutted the fact admitted must be taken to be established. (Thiru John v. Returning Officer, AIR 1977 SC 1724. A person is bound by admissions in the document executed by him. The presumption is that the recitals in the document are true and if he seeks to displace it, the onus is heavy on him. Section 31 of the Evidence Act provides that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppels.