Home Case Index All Cases Benami Property This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Benami Property - Case Laws

Showing 301 to 303 of 303 Records

• 1970 (3) TMI 172 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... mbined with a notice under S. 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, has to be served on the tenant personally? 1. The answer is in the negative. Even a notice of demand deemed or presumed to have been served on a tenant will be "service upon him of notice of demand". 2. Whether it is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove the endorsement of refusal on the notice sent by registered post by producing the postman or other evidence in case the defendant denies service on him? 2. The answer is in the negative. 3. Whether in the circumstances of the present case the Courts below were right in raising the presumtion under S. 114 of the Evidence Act in favour of the land lord? 3. The answer is In the affirmative. The presumption regarding service of such notice has also to oe made Under S, 27, General Clauses Act. 35. Let the papers of this appeal be now laid before the learned single Judge for the decision of the appeal. R.B. Mishra, J. 36. I agree. H.N. Seth, J. 37. I agree.

  ---

• 1964 (9) TMI 91 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tire assessment because one more item had to be considered and adjudicated upon. An order in such circumstances though appealable under the statute, was interlocutory in character, forming only a stage in the process of making the final assessment. The general principles laid down in the Privy Council decision in Maharaj Moheshur Singh v. The Bengal Government (1859) 7 M.I.A. 283, will apply. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the correctness of the decision of the income-tax officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under points 1 and 2 could be canvassed, when the matter came before the Appellate Tribunal which cannot be considered to be bound in any way by the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at the earlier stage. We, therefore, allow the revision case and set aside the order of the Tribunal refusing to consider the points raised by the Appellant in the appeal. We remand the case to the Tribunal for disposal in the light of the above observations.

  ---

• 1957 (11) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... con-text, in which that declaration was made, the above meaning can be attached to it. Really, what was intended by the learned Subordinate Judge appears to be that, as the property was defendant No. 2's, the plaintiff was entitled to attach it as his (defendant No. 2's) property. That also follows from the declaration, properly made, that defendant No. 1 was defendant No. 2's benamdar for that property and the dismissal of her claim, also properly, made The effect would, necessarily, be revival of the attachment before judgment subject, of course, to the remedies, if any, of the defendants of the Money Suit to have it cancelled or set aside in accordance with law. We do not think that anything more was meant by the learned Subordinate Judge by the declaration, to which exception has been taken by Dr. Sen Gupta, as stated above. 17. In the above view, we dismiss this appeal with costs, the hearing fee being assessed at 30 gold mohurs. P.K. Sarkar, J. 18. I agree.

  ---

1 ....1213141516