Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1933 [Entire Act]
K. Simrathmull vs S. Nanjalingiah Gowder on 28 February, 1962
In support of his contention he relied on the decisions reported in Chunchun Jha v. Ebadat Ali, and Simrathmull v. Nanjalingaiah, . In the first case it was held that to determine whether a given transaction is mortgage by conditional sale or sale outright with the condition of repurchase, what is relevant is not what the parties intended but what is the legal effect of the words which they used. There, it was a converse case of one document having been executed. The Supreme Court held that if the sale and agreement to repurchase are embodied in separate documents, the transaction cannot be mortgage whether the documents are contemporaneously executed or not and that the converse does not hold good, namely, merely from the fact that there is only one document does not necessarily mean that it must be a mortgage and that the surrounding circumstances must be kept in view. On the facts of that case it was found that there was relationship of debtor and creditor between the parties existing at the date of suit transaction and accordingly the transaction was held to be mortgage by conditional sale. We fail to see how this helps the appellant.
The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929
Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1933
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 2 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Jaffer Meher Ali vs Budge-Budge Jute Mills Co. on 8 May, 1906
In Jaffer Meher Ali v. Budge-Budge Jute Mills Co, ILR (1907) 34 Cal. 289, it was held that Under Section 6(h) of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 23 of the Contract Act, where the object of an assignment is fraudulent, the assignment is void and inoperative.
Chandra Sreenivasa Rao vs Korrapati Raja Rama Mohana Rao And Anr. on 17 April, 1951
In Sreenvasa Rao v. Rama Mohana Rao, , money was lent to a person to celebrate marriage of a minor child, which was prohibited under the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929. It was held by Justice Subba Rao, (as he then was) mat the object of the loan if permitted will defeat the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act and will also be against the public policy and hence borrowing is unlawful within the meaning of Section 23 of the Contract Act In view. I of these decisions, we have no hesitation in rejecting the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and hold that the sale deed dated 27-6-1961 is void.