Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: powers of attorney act 1882 amending act i powers of attorney amendment act 1982 Page 1 of about 282 results (0.110 seconds)

Mar 02 2010 (HC)

S.V. Revanaradhya Vs. Sri. Jagadish Mallikarjunaiah Chakrabhavi.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2010KAR3774

..... empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it. according ..... to osborn's concise law dictionary, a power of attorney means a formal instrument by which one person ..... are the persons holding power of attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties. thus, a holder of a power of attorney is the recognized agent of the party for the purpose of order 3 rule 1 of the cpc.11. section 1-a of the powers of attorney act, 1882 as amended by act no.55/1982. defines a power of attorney to include any instrument .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 2003 (HC)

Smt. Shanti Devi Agarwal Vs. V.H. Lulla

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2004MP58; 2003(4)MPHT57; 2003(4)MPLJ138

..... same order while allowing an application of the defendant under order 3 rule 2 of the code read with section 118 of the evidence act, rejected an affidavit of the plaintiff's son, the power of attorney holder, for recording of evidence on her behalf and also closed the plaintiff's evidence. thus the first part of the order dated ..... civil revision no. 83/2003 only on a limited ground that the rent controlling authority has seriously erred in rejecting the affidavit of the plaintiff's son being the power of attorney holder filed as the plaintiffs examination-in-chief under order 18 rule 4 of the code, whereas, the subsequent order dated 27-3-2003 has been challenged by ..... part the order dated 9-12-2002 to correct a mistake of closing the plaintiff's evidence while deciding the question as whether the plaintiff's on being the power of attorney holder was entitled to lead evidence on her behalf, by filing an affidavit.2. it is said that one smt. shanti devi agarwal (hereinafter referred to as ..... the civil revision no. 122/03, the said order of closing the plaintiff's evidence in toto was recalled by following the decisions of this court in the cases of (1) baburao vyas v. vijay mahajan (1984 mpwn note 6) and (2) vijay pre-prathamik & madhyamik vidyalaya shikshak samiti and ors. v. vijay madhyamik vidyalaya samiti (1986 mplj 541 ..... orderuma nath singh, j.1. this order, deciding the civil revision no. 83/2003 filed against an order dated 9-12-2002, in the case no. 2/2000-2001/90-7 passed by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 18 2017 (HC)

Natho Devi vs.tek Chand & Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... pvt. ltd. (supra) will not apply since documents in question executed by the appellant/plaintiff in favour of respondent no.1/defendant no.1 are of the year 1999 i.e prior to the amendment of section 53a of the transfer of property act, 1882 by act 48 of 2001 with effect from 24.9.2001. this aspect has been dealt in detail by this court in ..... judgment of hon?ble high court of delhi in ramesh chand v. suresh chand, 188 (2012) dlt538wherein it was held that the power of attorney given for a consideration coupled with interest is irrevocable u/s 202 of the contract act, 1872 and subsists even after the death of the executants. it was further held that the purchaser may not be a classical ..... . thus, the plaintiff having a better right/entitlement of possession of the entire property bearing no.1/2300-b, mandoli road, shahdara, delhi measuring 155 sq. yds by virtue of documents executed on 22.08.1982 is an admitted fact and stands proved on record. accordingly, i reject the first argument urged on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff.5. the second argument urged ..... on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff was that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 in an sworn affidavit executed prior to the filing of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2006 (HC)

S.C. Bose and Co. and ors. Vs. G. Srikanth

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2006AP337; 2006(4)ALD354

..... does not empower its donee to file the suit, and the copy of the power of attorney filed in the court is not attested by any responsible officer, the suit is barred under the provisions of the power of attorney act and so, section 85 of evidence act, and in view of the above incurable defects the trial court ought to have ..... the suit and the suit is also hopelessly barred by time. his next contention is that since the suit was numbered after coming into force of the cpc amendment acts of 1999 and 2002 and since the plaintiff did not comply with sub-rules (e) and (f) of rule 11 of order vii cpc, the court ..... -rules (e) and (f) to rule 11 of order 7 c.p.c. were introduced into cpc by section 17 of the c.p.c. amendment act, 1999. section 32(2)(k) cpc amendment act 1999 specifically lays down that the provisions of rules 9, 11, 14, 15 and 18 of order 7 of the first schedule ..... learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that though the plaint was presented before the coming into force of the amendments made by c.p.c. amendment acts of 1999 and 2002 to the cpc, since it was numbered subsequent to 1-7-2002 and since clauses (e) and (f) of rule 11 of order 7 c.p.c., ..... any proceedings 'pending' before the commencement of section 17 of c.p.c. amendment act 1999. the amendment acts of c.p.c. 1999 and 2002 came into force on 1-7-2002. since the suit admittedly was instituted prior to the commencement of the c.p.c. amendment act 1999, question of the court taking aid of sub-rules (e) and (f .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2006 (HC)

Suresh Dharu Vs. State and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2007(2)WLN338

..... has been executed on a stamp paper of rs. 100/-, which is insufficient stamp, in view of the amendment in section 17(1)(f) of the registration (rajasthan amendment) act, 1989. in terms of article 23 of 2nd schedule of the rajasthan stamp laws (adaptation act), 1952 and explanation appended to it, an agreement to sale on immovable property in the case of transfer of ..... bhagwati prasad, j.1. heard.2. the basis of the challenge of proceedings of acquisition in this writ petition by the petitioners is that he has purportedly purchased the land from the power of attorney holder of m/s. gordan ram and seven others on 15.03.2000. the agreement is attested on 08.09.2000. there is a condition in the agreement that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1982 (HC)

Parikh Amratlal Ramanlal and ors. Vs. Rami Mafatlal Girdharlal and ors ...

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (1982)2GLR337

..... clause (a), which is material for our purpose, has been completely substituted for original order 3, rule 2(a) by gujarat amendment of 1961 which reads as under:(a) persons holding on behalf of such parties either:(i) a general power of attorney, or(ii) in the case of proceedings in the high court of gujarat an advocate, and in the case of proceedings ..... (a) of rule 2 of order 3 has stood repealed by section 97 of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1976.the aforesaid grounds pressed in service by the learned member of the tribunal to base his conclusion that a power of attorney holder of a party in judicial proceedings before the mamlatdar has no right to depose on oath on behalf of ..... consider the question as to whether the facts about the bona fide requirement of the landlord, in the light of section 13(1)(g) of the bombay rents, hotel & lodging house rates control act, could be deposed to by his power of attorney holder. in this case the landlord in order to prove his case for bona fide requirement did not examine himself before ..... said amendment act, in view of section 97(1) of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1976. it was contended that the aforesaid reasoning of the tribunal is patently erroneous.5. the contentions raised by mr. s.r. shah, learned advocate for the petitioner are well sustained. the learned member of the tribunal has based his conclusion to the effect that a power of attorney holder .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 2004 (HC)

Gold Medal Rep. Sole Proprietor, Mohd Ali Arifi (Died) and ors. Vs. Sm ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2004(5)ALT542

..... of the clear evidence available on record, ex-a4 to a6, and also in the light of the amended provision referred to supra, which had watered down the rigour of section 106 of transfer of property act, 1882 as it originally stood prior to the amendment act, i am of the considered opinion that this ground also cannot be sustained. in the light of the detailed ..... court to section 99 of civil procedure code and had submitted that even if the appellants' contention relating to the institution of the suit, on the basis of the power of attorney ex-a1 and another power of attorney ex-a11, is to be considered at the best, it would be only a curable irregularity, which would not touch the jurisdiction of the court and hence ..... the findings of the court of first instance.9. as far as the aspect of the defect of the institution of the suit, through a power of attorney, ex-a1, and on the strength of another power of attorney ex-a11 is concerned, concurrent findings had been recorded and at any rate in view of section 99 of the civil procedure code, at the best it ..... questions of law to be decided in the present second appeal.a) whether the action of the respondent - plaintiff in executing a power of attorney in ex-a1 after institution of the suit on the basis of another power of attorney ex-a11, would remove the institutional defect in the suit and whether it amounts to only a curable irregularity?b) whether a suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 1991 (HC)

Bimla Wati Sharma Vs. State Bank of Patiala

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1992P& H101

..... order 9, rule 13 of the code. it was further held that in view of the insertion of the second proviso to order 9, rule 13 by the amending act of 1976, rulings, in which it was held that non-furnishing of copy of the plaint rendered the service to be invalid, ceased to hold the field. the ..... put in appearance on behalf of the applicant and had filed a memo, of appearance on may 22, 1989, and later on he had failed to file power-of-attorney on her behalf, the learned trial court held that there was no ground for setting aside the ex parte proceedings to permit the said applicant to file a ..... of appearance on. may 22, 1989, on behalf of sham lal sharma, adarsh mohan sharma and bimla wati sharma. on the next date fixed in the suit i,e. june 9, 1989, the said advocate filed power-of-attorney on behalf of sham lal sharma, defendant no. 2, and adarsh mohan sharma, defendant no. 5, but did not file ..... power-of-attorney in so far as smt. bimla wati sharma defendant no. 6 is concerned. issues were framed. the plaintiff closed its evidence on february 27, 1990. ..... -furnishing of a copy of the plaint along with the summons was a mere irregularity and the trial court was justified in dismissing the petitioner's application.5. i have given my due consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties.6. the primary question arising for consideration in this case is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 2005 (HC)

Sharadamma and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2005KAR3710; 2005(4)KarLJ481

..... the rights conferred by this part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.article 31. (before the constitution (fourth amendment) act, 1955)(1) no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.(2) no property, movable or immovable, including any interest in, or in any company owning, any ..... measuring 26 acres 12 guntas, which are mentioned in the schedule to the writ petition, with the owners, respondents 3 to 5. it is also stated that petitioner obtained general power of attorney from the owners. it is admitted that at the time of entering into agreement, the schedule lands were under litigation. under the agreement, petitioner had undertaken the responsibility to ..... claim 'promissory estoppels' against the government or the bda. in this connection, the law laid down by the apex court in bishamber dayal chandra mohan v. state of uttar pradesh : [1982]1scr1137 is relevant in jilubhai's case. that apart, the government cannot held out such a promise to any person. if any such promise is made, the same will be ..... held as under:'36. in bisambhar dayal chandra mohan v. state of uttar pradesh, : [1982]1scr1137 , paragraph 41, this court had held that the state government cannot while taking recourse to the executive power of the state under article 162, deprive a person of his property. such power can be exercised only by authority of law and not by a mere executive fiat .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 2000 (HC)

Basant Nahata Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2001(1)WLC433; 2001(1)WLN226

..... ultra vires and that a mandamus be issued to the sub-registrar to register the power of attorney dated 16.7.1999.13. the power of attorney act, 1882 (act 7 of 1882), came into force on the first day of may, 1882. the power of attorney includes any instrument empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing the document. there is no provision of ..... . f.2(2) fd/tax division/99-189 (annexure/3) dated 1.4.1999 as amended by notification no. f.2/fd/tax.div./99-213 dated 22.4.1999 (annexure/4) is also arbitrary. in the absence of any substantive provision of law limiting the life of any power of attorney to be a period of three years, registration of such instrument without ..... be arbitrary. so far as the notification annexure/3 dated 26.3.1999, as published in the gazette dated 1.4.1999, is concerned, the same is legal. it will not be out of place to mention that the aforesaid notification was amended by notification annexure/4 and the period was extended from six months to three years. in respect of the ..... view of aforesaid discussion, the provisions of section 22-a of the indian registration act as amended in rajasthan as well impugned notifications ex. 3,4, 6 & 7 are liable to be held ultra vires and invalid.[dr. ar. lakshmanan, cj.](per hon'ble rajesh balia, j.):41. i have had the advantage of perusing the order proposed by my lord the chief .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //