“Offences of forging documents for transferring ownership of land worth crores are grave in nature. Hence, while it is extremely important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent to analyse the seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodial interrogation.”
The Court also said that the right to repurchase can always be assigned and the contract containing such condition shall be enforceable, with only exception that such a right should not be personal in nature.
The Supreme Court ruled that the value of the plant and machinery must be considered and ascertained for payment of stamp duty on sale deeds.
The saga of twists and turns in facts of the matter starting with a lease deed, revenue entries, compensation, expunction orders, and what not? The series of developments over the past 100 years of suit land even cautioned the Supreme Court from deciding the matter casually.
“Stamp Act in its application to Uttar Pradesh has been amended by the UP (Stamp Amendment Act 1952) and Article 23 of Schedule IB as applicable to UP.”
The remand in the present case could only be correlated with Rule 23-A of Order XLI CPC and for its applicability, the necessary requirements were that “the decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary”, thus, the Supreme Court held that the remand in the present case was not justified.
Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed against the order passed by the Collector under Section 98(1) of U.P.
Supreme Court: In a suit for specific performance the Division Bench of Indira Banerjee* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., explained the
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of R. Mahadevan and Sathya Narayana Prasad, JJ. approved the orders of the Deputy
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dinesh Maheshwari* and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that in cases disclosing deliberate defiance and elective non-performance
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of V.M. Deshpande and Amit Borkar, JJ., expressed that a transaction by a natural guardian of
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of K.M. Joseph* and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ., held that mere writing the word “cancelled” or drawing
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC): The Coram of R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member) addressed a matter
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of M. R. Shah* and A.S. Bopanna, JJ., held that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste
Karnataka High Court: S. R Krishna Kumar J. allowed the petition and quashed the sale deed dated 23-08-2006. The present petition was
Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bhubaneswar: Siddhanta Das, Chairperson, Pradeep Kumar Biswal, Member – I and Ramanath Panda, Member – II held
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma CJ and Sachin Shankar Magadum J allowed the petition, quashed the initial
Andhra Pradesh High Court: M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J., expressed that, “If a party to the document wants to annul the document, he
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi: Naresh Kumar Laka, Additional District Judge, decided a suit with respect to partition and permanent injunction.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Expressing that when the children, who the parents have reared with untold sorrows and miseries, throw them