Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.41 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 31 in The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad vs Sunder Singh on 16 May, 2008
C/FA/1076/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/12/2022
15.9 In case of Municipal Corporation,
Hyderabad vs. Sunder Singh, reported in
(2008) 8 SCC 485 the Apex Court has held
and observed as follow:
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Basant Nahata on 7 September, 2005
15. The Apex Court in case of State of
Rajasthan and others vs. Basant Nahata,
reported in (2005) 12 SCC 77 has made it
clear that the power of attorney holder
Page 49 of 86
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 02:30:33 IST 2022
C/FA/1076/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/12/2022
acts in a fiduciary capacity and he cannot
use the power for his own benefit.
15.1 The Apex Court has held and
observed thus:
Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul And ... vs Pratima Maity And Ors on 9 September, 2003
15.2 The Apex Court in case of Krishna
Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul and
another vs. Pratima Maity and other,
reported in (2004) 9 SCC 468 also has held
Page 50 of 86
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 02:30:33 IST 2022
C/FA/1076/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/12/2022
that when a person in a fiduciary
relationship with another is in a position
of active confidence, it will be his onus
to prove that there is a absence of fraud,
misrepresentation and undue influence and
that the transaction was fair and real and
genuine as well. The burden of proving the
good faith of the transaction is thrown
upon the dominant party, the party who is
in a position of active confidence.
Sri U Vijaya Kumar vs Smt Malini V Rao on 30 May, 2016
15.3 In case of Sri U. Vijaya Kumar and
another vs. Smt.Malini V.Rao, reported in
ILR 2016 KAR 2670 a deed was executed by
the attorney in favour of his own wife. The
Court after examining the provisions of
Indian Contract Act particularly Section
215 of the Indian Contract Act has held
that it is clear that the sale deed was
executed without the plaintiff's knowledge
and consent and the same is disadvantageous
to the plaintiff. The defendants had
concealed the same from her and hence, the
plaintiff has repudiated the transaction.
The Court held that the agent is bound not
only not to injure the interest of his
Page 54 of 86
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 02:30:33 IST 2022
C/FA/1076/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/12/2022
principal, but also to further it. He is
not to place himself in a position where
his interest might be adverse to that of
the principal.
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) vs Mahant Ram Niwas & Anr on 12 May, 2008
34. An order of remand cannot be passed on ipse
Page 72 of 86
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 02:30:33 IST 2022
C/FA/1076/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/12/2022
dixit of the court. The provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure as also Section 11 thereof could
be invoked, provided of course the conditions precedent
therefor were satisfied. We may not have to deal with the
legal position obtaining in this behalf as the question has
recently been dealt with by this Court in Dadu Dayalu
Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) v. Mahant Ram Niwas & anr."
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
15.7 In case of Central Board of
Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya
Bandopadhyay and others, reported in
(2011) 8 SCC 497 the idea of fiduciary
relationship has been explained in detailed
by the Apex Court.