Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Ebrahim Mohamed Kulam – Appellant
Versus
Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras As Provisional Liquidator of Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited, Chennai – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
(Prayer IN C.A.Nos.359 & 360 of 2021: These applications are filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Rules 9, 11(B) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 praying to (a) set aside the auction sale notice dated 05.12.2021 with respect to the scheduled property belonging to the Applicant, in the matter of M/s.Maxworth Orchards India Limited; (b) grant stay of the sale notice dated 05.12.2021 with respect to the scheduled property belonging to the Applicant, in the matter of M/s.Maxworth Orchards India Limited.)
Common Order:
1. These applications were originally presented by the first applicant claiming title to lands ad-measuring 28.11 acres (Disputed Land) in Survey Nos.57/1A2, 57/1A3, 57/1B1B, 58/1, 58/2A, 58/2B, 58/5B, 59/2A1, 59/2A2, 59/3, 60/1, 60/2, 61/2A1D, 61/2B, 61/2C, 62/1A2, 62/1C1, 62/1C2, 62/1C3, 62/1C4, 62/1C5, 62/3, 62/4A1, 62/4A2, 62/4B, 76/2, 77/1, 77/2, 77/3, 78/1, 78/2, 227/2, 228/1A, 228/1C, 228/2A, 228/2C, 228/3, 228/4, 229/1A, 229/1C, 229/2A, 229/2B, 229/3, 230/1, 231/1A, 230/2, 231/2, 241/2, 241/3B, 242/1A and 242/1C, Nan
Sale deeds executed post-winding up are void under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, and powers of attorney executed for fraudulent purposes do not confer rights over property.
Compliance with statutory requirements for death certificates and the impact of delay in filing applications on the admissibility of claims.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely and proper legal action, and the need for plaintiffs to make clear and consistent pleadings to support their claims.
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish their title, and failure to do so results in dismissal, regardless of the defendants' claims.
General Power of Attorney ceases upon the death of the principal, invalidating any subsequent sale deeds executed without the consent of all necessary parties.
The legal principle established is that in disputes over possession and ownership, the registered title holder is presumed to be in possession unless the contrary is proven, and the burden of proof l....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article