Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.35 seconds)Asset Reconstruction Company (India) ... vs S.P. Velayutham on 4 May, 2022
NC: 2026:KHC:24602
WP No. 19583 of 2024
HC-KAR
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 02.11.2007 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 ₹21,00,000/-
has been paid by respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the
petitioners. The petitioners, despite being recipients of
such consideration, have neither questioned the said
foundational documents nor sought cancellation in a
manner known to law.
Section 32 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
P.Kathiravan vs The Joint I Sub Registrar on 9 March, 2023
NC: 2026:KHC:24602
WP No. 19583 of 2024
HC-KAR
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 02.11.2007 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 ₹21,00,000/-
has been paid by respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the
petitioners. The petitioners, despite being recipients of
such consideration, have neither questioned the said
foundational documents nor sought cancellation in a
manner known to law.