Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)
M/S.Cholamandalam Investment And ... vs Inspector General Of Registration on 20 February, 2023
cites
The Registration Act, 1908
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
Article 300A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Vidaya Devi vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 8 January, 2020
20. These issues have been thoroughly deliberated
and elaborately discussed in Ramayee’s case, which has
also been affirmed by the Supreme Court, this Court is of
the view that the effect of the first proviso is to set at naught
to the above declaration of law by the Supreme Court and
the Division Bench and it nullifies the several provisions of
the Transfer of Property Act, as stated above. The
authorities under the Registration Act have no jurisdiction
to make rules which have the direct and immediate effect of
restraining transactions which are permitted under the
Transfer of Property Act. Such a restriction would be
clearly illegal and violative of a citizen’s right to deal with
his property and would clearly infringe Article 300-A of the
Constitution. It does not bear repetition that Article 300-A
has now been recognised as a human right [Vidya Devi v
State of Himachal Pradesh, 2020 2 SCC 569].
Section 22 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
State Of A.P. & Ors vs M/S. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co on 21 February, 2013
22. Similarly, the second proviso requires the
executant to produce a revenue record to show his “right
over the subject property” where the property is ancestral
in character and there is no original deed available. Even a
tax receipt can be produced under this proviso which is
opposed to the fundamental principle of law that revenue
records are not documents of title [State of A.P. v Star Bone
Mill and Fertilizer Company, 2013 9 SCC 319]. Production
of revenue documents to verify the source of title only
demonstrates complete ignorance of the settled position of
law.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Basant Nahata on 7 September, 2005
In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12
SCC 77, which was also a case concerning the provisions
of the Registration Act, the Supreme Court held that a
subordinate legislation under the said Act which is not
backed up by any statutory guideline under the substantive
law and opposed to the enforcement of a legal right, was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14/23
Writ Petition Nos.30320 of 2022, 2672,
3828, 4307 and 4308 of 2023
invalid. In this case also, Rule 55-A being a subordinate
legislation does not have any statutory guideline (for
instance like the transactions mentioned in Section 22-