Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.45 seconds)
Maniben Mangalbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 6 May, 2026 cites

Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 25 February, 2014

30. As observed earlier, the office of the Collector had submitted the proposal twice to the Revenue Department since the market price of the subject land is more than 50 lakhs and therefore the decision is required to be approved by the State Level Valuation Committee. The first proposal was sent on 20/22.03.2004 and at that time the price of the subject land was assessed at Rs.2,000/- per sq. mtr. and secondly when the proposal was sent on 03.05.2007, at that relevant point of time, the price of the subject land was assessed at Rs.14,500/-. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors. (supra) would be squarely applicable in the instant case and as held in the said decision, the Collector is expected to take a decision within 90 days from the date of receipt of the application and therefore if the decision taken by the Collector at the time of second proposal is to be accepted, in that event, the petitioners are required to make the payment of premium at the rate of Rs.14,500/- per sq. mtr.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 52 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Her Highness Shantadevi Pratapsinh Rao ... vs Savjibhai H. Patel And Ors. on 15 June, 1998

13.1.In rejoinder, learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioners has submitted that it is true that one of the persons, who has given power of attorney, i.e. Maniben Patel passed away on 26.11.2005 but it is an admitted fact that power of attorney executed in Page 21 of 58 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14703/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined favour of Mahendrabhai Chhotalal Doshi is irrevocable power of attorney coupled with interest and out of five persons, if one person is passed away, then also the irrevocable power of attorney would continue to operate and would not cease to operate. He submits that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Her Highness Shantadevi Pratapsinh Rao v. Savjibhai H. Patel And Ors., reported in 1998(2) GLR 1521 observed and held that, "No doubt, in the case of Garapati Venkanna (supra), the Madras High Court had held that, where a power of attorney has been executed by several principals in favour of a person and one of the principals having distinguished interest in subject-matter of power of attorney dies, the death terminates the power of attorney. This view was taken by the Madras High Court because, the Court found that there was no authority coupled with an interest and, therefore, the argument raised on the basis of Section 202 of the Contract Act could not prevail. Here is a case in which we have already held as above that it was a case of an agency coupled with interest. In our opinion, the position of law with reference to Section 202 of the Contract Act is, therefore, very clear that the cases in which the agency is coupled with interest and there is no express contract for termination, there cannot be any termination even by death and, therefore, the factum of death of the principal during the pendency of the suit cannot lead to the termination of the agency.
Gujarat High Court Cites 98 - Cited by 4 - R M Doshit - Full Document
1   2 Next