Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Bishnu Kumar Rai vs Minor Mahendra Bir Lama And Ors. on 18 July, 2005
Elaborating his submission, the Learned Counsel further submitted that in the said Bishnu Kumar Rai's case, the documents in question which was not allowed to be brought on record by paying the penalty was a mere vague money receipt not being a sale deed as in the present case. Unlike in that case the unregistered document, in question, in the present case is a sale deed. Therefore, the question considered by the Division Bench in the above case being entirely different, the ratio of that case does not apply to the facts of the case in hand.
M. Karunanidhi vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1979
19. It may be noted at the very outset that the transaction between the parties relates to the year 1967-1968 i.e. during the time when the two Notifications held the field. As already noted above, it Is not disputed by the parties that the two Notifications were laws In force and thus protected under Article 37 IF of the Constitution. The only contention of Mr. Saraf is that, these laws stood superseded after the extension and enforcement of T. P. Act 1882 to Sikkim with effect from 1-9-1984 and therefore do not govern the present case. The question whether the two Notifications are superseded now, after the extension and enforcement of T. P. Act in the State, even though a pertinent one, it is settled position of law that there can be no repeal by implication in absence of repugnancy between the two Acts. A Division Bench of this Court relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India has held in Nima Ongdi Lepcha v. State of Sikkim W.P. (C) No. 7 of 2005 decided on 12th May 2006 . that there can be no repeal by implication unless the repugnancy between the Acts appears on the face of the two statutes. In the present case on hand there is no question of such direct and irreconcilable inconsistency in so far as Section 54 of the T. P. Act only makes registration of sale deed up to the value of rupees one hundred and upwards compulsory, the two Notifications deal with the question of admitting unregistered documents in evidence for certain purpose on payment of penalty prescribed therein, it thus follows that even though the two statutes operate in the same field, no irreconcilable repugnancy results and question of repeal of the Notifications in question on and after the coming into effect of the T.P. Act in the State does not arise. Even otherwise, the validity of (he two Notifications on the date the transaction was entered into, is not at all in question. It is not the
raze of either of the parties that the enforcement of the T.P. Art has been made in the State with retrospective effect and the two statutes are in conflict with each other. It is thus evident that the provisions contained in the two Notifications which were laws in force at the relevant time continue to remain in force in the State and thus apply to the present case in hand.
North East Finance Corporation Ltd. And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 2 September, 1999
The learned Counsel, in support of his submission, relied on two single Bench decisions of this Court rendered in North East Finance Corporation Ltd. v. U.O.I. reported in SLJ 1999 at page 109 and Raj Kumar Rai v. State of Sikkim reported in 1978 (4) SLJ 8. A perusal of the two decisions would go to show that the implication of the word 'repeal' did not figure directly for consideration in North East Finance Corporation Ltd. It was only in the other case of Raj Kumar Rai that the question was considered in detail. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment relied on by the learned Counsel is as follows:
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 37 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rama Krishna Ramanath vs The Janpad Sabha, Gondia on 7 February, 1962
15. The above observation, no doubt makes it clear that the expression 'repeal' includes implied repeal or repeal by implication. However, the point which the learned Counsel for the respondent has failed to notice is that the word 'repeal' referred to in the above Judgment relied on by him is a repeal by legislation and not by ratio of a case. It is a well-recognized position in law that the word 'repeal' connotes the abrogation of one Act by another AIR 1950 Hyd 20. As laid down by the Apex Court in Ram Krishna Prasad v. Janpad Sabha the general rule is that "the power of a legislative body to repeal a law is coextensive with its power to enact such a law" and a legislature which has no power to enact a law on a particular subject matter has no power to repeal the same. In other words, no repeal can be brought about "unless there is an express repeal of an earlier Act by the later Act or unless the two Acts cannot stand together." see .
Pawan Kumar Rai vs State Of Sikkim on 11 September, 2003
22. We have already come to a conclusion above that the decision in Bishnu Kumar Rai's case AIR 2005 Sikkim 33 (supra) cannot be taken as repealing the Notifications in question. It is hardly necessary to reiterate the reasons given in support of such aforesaid conclusion. Similarly, it has also been observed that the two Notifications held the field at the relevant time and since the Transfer of roperty Act was not brought into force with retrospective effect, the transaction between the parties fell within the purview of the two Notifications and even otherwise, there is now inconsistency on the face of the two statutes. These foregoing observations therefore fully demonstrate the fallacy of the reasoning given by the learned trial Court in support of the impugned order for rejecting the prayer for permitting the present Appellants to validate the unregistered document on payment of penalty prescribed in the Notifications. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be accepted as legally sound.
1