Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)
Sri Narayanaswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2026 cites

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) ... vs S.P. Velayutham on 4 May, 2022

21. However, the facts in the present case stand on a distinctly different footing and are not analogous to those considered either by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and others (supra) or by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in S.P. Vairavan vs. The Sub-Registrar (supra). In the case on hand, the impugned sale deed is not an isolated transaction, but is preceded by an Agreement of Sale dated 22.06.2007 coupled with a General Power of Attorney of even date, which, when read conjointly, prima facie indicate that the agency created thereunder is one coupled with interest, particularly in light of the admitted position that a substantial consideration of ₹35,00,000/- has been paid by respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the petitioner. The petitioner, despite being recipients of such consideration, has neither questioned the said foundational documents nor sought cancellation in a manner known to law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 24 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

P.Kathiravan vs The Joint I Sub Registrar on 9 March, 2023

21. However, the facts in the present case stand on a distinctly different footing and are not analogous to those considered either by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and others (supra) or by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in S.P. Vairavan vs. The Sub-Registrar (supra). In the case on hand, the impugned sale deed is not an isolated transaction, but is preceded by an Agreement of Sale dated 22.06.2007 coupled with a General Power of Attorney of even date, which, when read conjointly, prima facie indicate that the agency created thereunder is one coupled with interest, particularly in light of the admitted position that a substantial consideration of ₹35,00,000/- has been paid by respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the petitioner. The petitioner, despite being recipients of such consideration, has neither questioned the said foundational documents nor sought cancellation in a manner known to law.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document
1   2 Next