Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: powers of attorney act 1882 amending act i powers of attorney amendment act 1982 Year: 1976

Nov 03 1976 (HC)

P.N. Karkhanis Vs. P.N. Chopra

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-03-1976

Reported in : 13(1977)DLT22

..... the respondent is neither the owner nor the landlord : (5) that since the respondent is neither the owner nor the landlord, the ground for eviction under section 14(1)(e) of the act, as amended, is also not available to the petitioner.'(6) shri p.n. chopra filed a reply dated april 27, 1976 to the application of the petitioner, for leave to ..... in the name of the respondent shri p.n. chopra in the house tax records and other municipal records. the respondent shri p.n. chopra had granted a general power of attorney in favor of his father shri a.n. chopra as he himself had been posted out of delhi. it was further submitted that the tenancy of shri n.d. karkhanis ..... thus no non-joinder of any party. it was further pleaded that the premises had been let out by the responded through his general attorney, shri a.n. chopra and a photostat copy of the general power of attorney dated july 8, 1954 was also filed, lt was further stated that the respondent has been mostly serving outside delhi as an employee of ..... in his reply affidavit, was very clear. it was stated that shri a.n. chopra is his father and general attorney vide registered general power of attorney dated july 8, 1954, a photo-stat copy of which was placed on record, and this power of attorney gave authority to shri a.n. chopra to let out the property, to receive rents etc. from the tenants .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 1976 (HC)

Bhairavasingh Malojirao Ghorpade and anr. Vs. Shankar Rao Bindu Rao Pa ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-26-1976

Reported in : AIR1976Kant164; ILR1976KAR1279; 1976(1)KarLJ418

..... apply to the facts of the present case.14. it is contended by mr. benadikar that by virtue of the constitution (26th amendment) act 1971 the recognition accorded to defendant-1 by the president of india was withdrawn and that therefore the de-recognition relates back to the date of the institution of the suit ..... of the suit on 5-12-1970 was valid even though no consent had been obtained on that date. by virtue of the con stitution (26th amendment) act under which the privileges of the former indian rulers were abolished, it became no longer necessary to obtain the consent of the central government under section ..... of civil procedure on 29-7-1971. the certificate was granted by the central government on 10-10-1971. the constitution (26th - amendment) act, 1971 came into effect on 29-12-1971. i. a. vi was filed on 7-6-1971.8. the order of the court in : [1971]3scr9 (madhav rao scindia v. ..... suit on 5-12-1970 under section 6 of the specific relief act, 1963 for possession of the suit immoveable properties. defendant-1 was the former ruler of mudhol state. defendant-2 (respondent-2) is his mother, defendant-3 is the general power of attorney-holder from defendants 1and 2. respondents 3 to 12 (defendants 4 ..... 1897) ilr 21 born 351 (cbandulal v awad). in that case the consent of the governor general in council under section 433 of the civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882) had not been obtained or applied for when the suit was filed, but it was given more than a year afterwards. it was held that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 1976 (SC)

Narendrakumar J. Modi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Ii, Ahme ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-04-1976

Reported in : AIR1976SC1953; [1976]105ITR109(SC); (1976)4SCC456; [1977]1SCR112; 1976(8)LC733(SC)

..... determined in such proceedings.9. none of the points urged on behalf of the appellant merits any detailed discussion. we were taken through the power of attorney executed by bapalal in favour of gulabchand, the deed of relinquish-ment executed by him on october 22, 1954 and the alleged memorandum of ..... .4. the appellant's case in the writ petition was that bapalal was the karta of the hindu undivided family. he executed a general power of attorney on october 5, 1948 in favour of his third son gulabchand to manage his (bapalal's) separate property. on october 22, 1954 bapalal ..... obtained a certified from the high court for appeal to this court under sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of article 133 of the constitution of india as it stood before the 30th constitution amendment act. hence this appeal to this court.2. having heard mr. b. r. l. lyengar, senior advocate ..... quashing the orders of the income-tax authorities refusing to record partition and directing the respondent and his subordinates to record under section 25a of the act that the erstwhile joint family property has been divided or partitioned in definite portions, each member getting an equal share, on october, 1954; ( ..... partition of october 24, 1954; the orders of the income tax officer, the appellate commissioner and the tribunal in the proceedings under section 25a of the income tax act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 1976 (SC)

Shankar Gopinath Apte Vs. Gangabai Hariharrao Patwardhan

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-25-1976

Reported in : AIR1976SC2506; (1976)4SCC112; [1977]1SCR411; 1976(8)LC823(SC)

..... of a permanent character of the land involving heavy expenses, the licence would be irrevocable under section 60(b) of the easements act, 1882. this argument was made expressly on the assumption that the power of attorney was a nominal document and therefore inoperative. in view of our finding that the document was intended to be ..... to take steps for disposing of the land by sale. but for some reason or the other the document remained unexecuted. on february 1, 1963 the respondent executed a power of attorney in favour of the appellant. the true nature of this document and its real purpose are both in dispute but ex-facie, ..... raise this plea was rejected by it and the order was confirmed in revision by the high court. apart from the fact that the application for amendment was made at a late stage of the proceedings, on merits, there is no substance whatever in the contention that the appellant is entitled to protect ..... , the respondent prayed for a decree for possession of the suit lands.2. the suit property consists of 3 agricultural lands bearing survey nos. 98/1-1, 98/1-2 and 99, admeasuring in all 54 acres and 20 gunthas. the lands are situated in a village called kiwale in pune district.3. these lands ..... appellant continued in possession of the property from year to year on payment, at intervals, of the agreed sum of rs.2000 per annum. on january 1, 1967 the appellant's name, on an application made by him, was entered in the record of rights as a tenant of the respondent. in february .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 23 1976 (HC)

Nagheetha Maracair Vs. Govindaswami Naidu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-23-1976

Reported in : (1977)1MLJ411

..... arising out of and incident to a contract and is, therefore, governed by article 114 of the limitation act of 1877 (corresponding to section 55 of the limitation act of 1963). since the mortgage exhibit a-1 executed by the first defendant as power of attorney agent of his wife has become void for want of authority to transfer title it should be taken that ..... of 1938 as he admittedly owns agricultural lands. secondly it is contended that even if the debt is treated as a debt secured on house property, the provisions of the act as amended subsequent to the decision of the lower court will take in even a debt secured by the mortgage of a house property and, therefore, as on date, the appellant ..... been incurred on the security of the house property cannot be sustained in view of the provisions of the said act as amended from time to time.9. the learned counsel for the first respondent would, however, challenge the finding of the lower court that the power under exhibit a-4 did not authorise the first defendant to execute the mortgage exhibit a ..... above section the lower court held that the first defendant is not entitled to the benefits of the act. however, subsequent to the decision of the court below, on 23rd october, 1970 section 4 has been amended by madras act viii of 1973 and the amended section does not exclude a debt contracted on the security of house property. in the absence of any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 1976 (HC)

National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. World Science News and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-27-1976

Reported in : AIR1976Delhi263; 12(1976)DLT69; ILR1976Delhi559; 1976RLR356

..... seal of the said bank. and that the signatures 'twining' and 'h. d. cayley' severally and respectively subscribed at food of the foregoing power of attorney are of the respective proper handwriting of the said the high honourable edward francis baron twining g.c.m.g. m.b.e. and henry douglas ..... . (8) at the time of hearing, mr. mahinder narain, learned counsel for the plaintiff, produced before me the original power of attorney. this document shows that it is a power of attorney in favor of john herbert keeble executed on behalf of the plaintiff-bank. it also benrs the seal of the plaintiff-bank ..... shri rameshwar dial, learned counsel for defendants i to 3, is that the notary public in section 85 or section 57 of the evidence act merely means notaries appointed under the notaries act 1952. the argument is that where a document purports to be a power of attorney, before the court can presume it to be ..... bank. (4) in the amended written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 3, a plea was taken that, 'it is not admitted that the plaint has been properly signed and the suit ..... with the facts of the case. the plaint was signed and verified by the said manager as constituted attorney, and the suit was filed through advocates in this court. (3) later on, the plaint was amended as the name of the plaintiff- bank had been changed into grindlays bank instead of national and grindlays .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 1976 (HC)

Kandaswamy Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Madurai T.S. Naina Mohammed Rowther C ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-02-1976

Reported in : (1977)1MLJ244

..... will be held to apply prima facie to all actions, pending as well as future.' in the house of lords in attorney general v. vernazza (1960) a.c. 965. it was held that the supreme court of judicature (amendment) act, 1959, section 1 (1) (which empowers a court to prevent a litigant from continuing existing proceedings when he is declared a vexatious litigant), affects only ..... only prospective.thereafter, gokulakrishnan, j., concludes that,as far as the present case is concerned, there is no such amending act by the legislature excepting the government passing a government order under the powers conferred upon them under section 29 of the act. hence, it is clear that the present government order can neither affect a decision rendered nor interfere with the pending proceedings ..... .r. co. 77 n.h. 573 : 94 at. 1967. involving a statute which placed the burden of proving contributory negligence upon the defendant:'in cases where the legislature have unquestionable power under the constitution to take away or substantially modify the remedy in a pending suit it is generally impolitic and unjust to exercise the ..... all the provisions of the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1960 (referred to hereinafter as 'the act'). this notification was issued by the government by virtue of the power conferred on it under section 29 of the act. section 29 of the act states that,notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the government may, subject to such conditions as they may deem fit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 1976 (SC)

Paradip Port Trust, Paradip Vs. their Workmen

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-09-1976

Reported in : AIR1977SC36; 43(1977)CLT419(SC); 1976LabIC770; (1976)IILLJ409SC; (1977)2SCC339; [1977]1SCR537

..... officer of the first party. the tribunal further held :merely by execution of a power-of-attorney, the restrictions attached to a legal practitioner contained in sub-section (4) of the act cannot be circumvented. i would accordingly hold that shri misra who is a legal practitioner cannot represent the first party ..... and workmen and workmen, such disputes, almost, always are between employers and workmen. prior to the insertion of section 2a in the act by the amendment act 35 of 1965 a dispute raised only by a single individual workman did not come under the category of an industrial dispute within ..... the meaning of section 2(k). left to himself, no remedy was available to such an aggrieved individual workman by means of the machinery provided under the act ..... the federation of associations of employers and not of the company or corporation.20. the matter of representation by a legal practitioner holding a power of attorney came up for consideration before the full bench of the appellate tribunal of india in the year 1951 (see kanpur hoisery workers' union v ..... simpliciter, cannot appear before an industrial tribunal without the consent of the opposite party and leave of the tribunal merely by virtue of a power of attorney executed by a party. a lawyer can appear before the tribunal in the capacity of an office-bearer of a registered trade union or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 1976 (HC)

Pran Nath Lekhi Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-16-1976

Reported in : AIR1977Delhi167; 1977CriLJ1130; ILR1977Delhi146B

..... . b. jeejeebhoy v. assistant collector, thana, : [1965]1scr636 . (17) sikri, c. j. in the same case has expressed himself as follows (para 302, page 1535 of the report) : 'the learned attorney-general said that every provision of the constitution is essential; otherwise it would not have been put in the constitution. this is true. but this does not place every provision ..... article 352 of the constitution, thenthe sine qua one of the subjective satisfaction disappeared and it had to be held that there was no valid exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of article 352 of the constitution. the material on the basis of which the satisfaction of the president is said to have been arrived at was contended by the ..... ground to judicially review the validity of the declaration made by a proclamation by the president is taken away. thereforee, neither the subjective satisfaction of the president postulated by clause (1) and clause (3) of article 352 nor the declaration made by a proclamation following the satisfaction is open to judicial review, (12) this brings us to the next question agitated ..... the parliament inasmuch as it adversely affects the powers of judicial review. (20) both the existence and debarment of judicial review vis-a-vis specified statutes and executive action has been the scheme of our constitution from the very inception, at least from the lirst constilution amendment act. so, we might well assume that it is a basic feature of our constitution that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 1976 (HC)

N. Guruva Reddy Vs. the District Registrar, Hyderabad

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-02-1976

Reported in : AIR1976AP417

..... on a different footing altogether. the main question before the full bench of this court in bapiraju's case, : air1968ap142 (fb) was whether the power of attorney executed in pursuance of the compromise decree could be said to be chargeable with duty as a mortgage with possession. 13. as against these decisions ..... a particular form to minimise stamp duty. thus, the document is only a power of attorney and not a mortgage with possession. 12. we fail to see how this decision of our high court in bapiraju v. district registrar, : ..... only by reference to the form, nature and the recitals in the document. the practice of resorting to a compromise decree and a power of attorney to evade stamp duty on a document of mortgage with possession cannot be helped as there can be no impediment to a party adopting ..... in respect of each of the considerations. it seems that distinct matters meant for this purpose matters which either fall under separate heads of charge or amendment separate transactions. there is authority for the principle that an instrument, stamped for its leading and principal object, covers everything necessary to that object. ..... of rs. 25. against the order of the district registrar, a revision petition was preferred before the board of revenue under section 56(1) of the stamp act by sri n. gurava reddy. he contended that the document is a deed of dissolution of partnership simpliciter and nothing else. the board .....

Tag this Judgment!


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