Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
The Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986
O.S. Bajpai vs The Administrator (Lt. Governor Of ... on 28 May, 2010
In O.S.Vajpayee (supra) a direction was
issued for the compliance of the provision of the said Act but that does not mean that
transaction prior thereto by way of endorsement etc. has not been given effect to on
the ground of non registration and non stamping.
Ambica Prasad vs Md. Alam And Anr on 8 April, 2015
71. In these regard it is to be noted that defendant no. 1 did its level best to
clarify its position. Defendant no. 1 repeatedly written letter to the plaintiffs to
Suit No. 11769/2016 Rajinder Mohan & Ors Vs M/s ANZ Grindlays Bank & Ors Page No. 35 of 37
finalize its deal or resolve their disputes and for some time they did suspend the
release of rent and in its wisdom filed the interpleader suit to end its predicament
and therefore, no fault could be found with defendant no. 1. Admittedly defendant
No.1 had occupied the suit property as tenant w.e.f. 31.8.1991 from defendant No. 7
M/s Rational Enterprises and although at the time of transaction lease had expired
but M/s Rational Enterprises had not taken any action against defendant No.1 and
therefore lease of defendant No.1 was month to month and subsequently admittedly
lease deed dt 3.3.1994 was executed between M/s Rational Enterprises and
defendant No.1. Therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant between
defendant No.1 and Defendant No.7 M/s Rational Enterprises did not come to end at
any point of time. For all practical purpose defendant No.8 M/s Rational Enterprises
continued to be landlord of defendant No.1. Therefore, possession of defendant No.1
cannot be said to be unauthorised in respect of the suit property and no privity of
contract with plaintiff came into existence, therefore, defendant no. 1 is not liable to
pay any mesne profit/damages to the plaintiff. Plaintiffs reliance on the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambica Prasad v. Mohd. Alam & others,(2015) 13
SCC 13 is misplaced as the same is distinguishable on facts. In that case transferor
has not disputed the sell, he was only collecting rent but in the present case
transferor has disputed the sell to plaintiff by openly writing letter to defendant
No.1, hence the ratio of relied upon aforesaid case is of no help to the plaintiffs in
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
Nothing has been brought on record that any other trustees were also
acting for the trust. All document, as brought on record, executed in the name of
Trust were signed by Sh O. P. Goel only without any reference of any resolution
having been passed in his favour. Defendant No. 3, 7 & 8 have not bothered even to
brought on record the trust deed. Defendant No. 3, 7 & 8 were in possession of best
evidence but did not bring it on record for reason best known to them and therefore
an adverse inference be drawn against them in view of ruling of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohammad Haji Latif & Ors.,AIR 1968 SC
1413. Since the existence of O. P. Goel Trust has not been proved, therefore, it does
not appear to be real and genuine Trust and appears to have existed in vacuum only.
Even if it is believed that such trust was in existence same appears to be only a
cloak, mask and veil and which was only a one man show of O. P. Goel and the
other alleged trustees etc. were only toeing line or were only in paper.
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011
59. The other contention on behalf of the defendant no. 3, 7 and 8 is that
since the Receipt-Cum-Declaration Ex. PW 1/3 is not a registered document and
sale/transfer can take place only by way of registered sale deed, therefore there is no
transfer of title in favour of plaintiffs. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 3, 7 and 8
also relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Suraj Lamp &
Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Haryana, 2011(4) KLJ 682(SC). But
said judgment is not applicable to the present case as it has already been clarified
that said judgment will be having prospective effect and not retrospective.