Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)

Dwijapada Haldar vs Prafulla Chandra Haldar on 30 March, 1972

18. The learned trail judge held that the application under Section 8 of the said Act was not maintainable in view of the fact that the preemptor did not deposit the entire consideration money plus 10% of such consideration money as compensation. However, in Dwijapada Halder vs. Prafulla Chandra Halder reported in 76 CWN 784, it has been clearly held that an application for preemption under Section 8(1) cannot be rejected if the applicant made a short deposit at the time of filing of such application and it would be sufficient compliance of Section 8(1) of the Act if the preemptor deposits the balance of the consideration money when the Revenue Officer passes the final order or after the amount of the consideration money payable by the preemptor has been finally adjudicated by the Revenue Officer under Section 9(1) of the said Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Abdur Rahman vs Sk. Abu Bakar & Anr on 2 February, 2015

Subsequently, in Abdur Rahaman vs. Sk. Abu Bakar reported in 2016 (1) CHN (Cal) 319, this court further held that an application under Section 8 of the said Act is maintainable even when the short deposit is made and if a dispute is raised to the actual market value being less than what is shown as consideration money in the deed, it is a duty of the court to determine and/or ascertain the same. As such the court cannot straightway dismiss the preemption application merely on the ground of short deposit.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - H Tandon - Full Document
1