Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Mr. Swapan Kumar Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Others on 29 November, 2019 cites

Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011

In fact, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney (Mrs.) & Anr. (supra) in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (supra), that such enquiry is necessary as the dishonest transferor very often to defraud the State Exchequer enter into property deal with the dishonest transferee in the guise of Power of Attorney Sale, Agreement for sale with a General Power of Attorney or living will transfer. On perusal of these judgments it appears to me that such an inquiry in the present case will result in futility as the state respondent never intended to put any restriction on transfer by way of bequest in the lease which is under consideration before me unlike the cases which were before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein transfer of any description, without permission of the authority was totally prohibited."
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1760 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

The State Of West Bengal & Anr vs Kailash Chandra Kapur & Ors on 29 November, 1996

5. Mr. Mukul Lahiri learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF W.B. AND ANOTHER Vs. KAILASH CHANDRA KAPUR AND OTHERS reported in (1997) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 387 has already decided that bequest of the lease hold interest by the original lessee in favour of a stranger is not a transfer and/or assignment contemplated under the clauses of the original lease deed prohibiting transfer of the lease hold 4 interest without the prior permission of the State Authority, the petitioner therefore is not required to pay the Government fees in terms of the subject notification. He submits that the respondent no. 4 has committed error in directing the petitioner to deposit said Government fees as a condition precedent for the purpose of said mutation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

Sri Pawan Kumar Agarwal & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 September, 2013

Mr. Lahiri in support of his aforesaid submission places reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of SRI PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL & ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS reported in 2014(1) CHN (Cal) 83 and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS. Vs. SMT. KUSUM AGARWAL & ANOTHER reported in 2019 (1) CLJ (Cal) 417.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - J Bhattacharya - Full Document

Smt. Rashmi Kumar vs Mahesh Kumar Bhada on 18 December, 1996

6. Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RASHMI KUMAR (SMT) Vs. MAHESH KUMAR BHADA reported in (1997) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 397 has noted the disturbing consequences of transaction of immovable properties by sale agreement, general power of attorney and Will instead of registered instrument of conveyance, therefore, according to him if the prayer of the petitioner is allowed such practice would be encouraged.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 276 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Delhi Development Authority vs Mrs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney & Anr on 26 August, 2003

In fact, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney (Mrs.) & Anr. (supra) in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (supra), that such enquiry is necessary as the dishonest transferor very often to defraud the State Exchequer enter into property deal with the dishonest transferee in the guise of Power of Attorney Sale, Agreement for sale with a General Power of Attorney or living will transfer. On perusal of these judgments it appears to me that such an inquiry in the present case will result in futility as the state respondent never intended to put any restriction on transfer by way of bequest in the lease which is under consideration before me unlike the cases which were before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein transfer of any description, without permission of the authority was totally prohibited."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 64 - Full Document
1