IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S. SUNDAR, N. SENTHILKUMAR, JJ.
M. Kathirvel - Petitioner
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration Department of Registration and Ors. – Respondents
WP.Nos.10291/2022, 8768 , 31075, 31079, 18883/2023, WP[MD].Nos.6556, 7088, 7385, 7958, 8836, 9213, 13330, 13746, 13824, 14069, 15557, 7836, 13172, 13895/2023, 10604/2020, 16445/2022, 21199/2022, 7262, 7267 7704, 8357, 8445, 8653, 8679/2023, 8999, 9024, 9120, 9125, 9534, 9550, 9554, 9919, 10729, 10818, 11891, 12208, 12694, 13642, 13666, 13770, 13995, 14055, 14121, 14567,14674, 15020, 15477, 15553, 10993, 19148/2023, 3419, 4983, 5396, 5397, 5782, 6215, 6333, 6686, 8421, 8550, 8558, 8765, 8814,9975, 10315, 10858/2023, WP.No.11009/2023, WP.[MD].Nos.11121, 11273, 11890, 13188,14353, 15105, 15120, 15172, 15543, 15822, 18274, 22561, 8987, 9163, 9691, 10718, 13147, 6457, 6709, 9770, 9936, 10352, 13000, 8095, 8175, 7852, 5419/2023, 831, 4073, 12480, 14546, 17719, 18419, 24610, 24805/2022, 2734, 2792, 4840, 5108, 5399, 5413, 5418, 5449, 5492, 5497, 5613, 6288, 6443, 6850, 7444, 7920, 8305, 8600, 8832, 9386, 9523, 9556, 9563, 9638, 9681, 10378, 10525, 10705, 12885, 13385, 13567, 13994, 14402, 14865, 15197, 15825, 22570, 29682, 7052/2023 ; WP.No.26952/2022, 19264, 20907/2023, 4161/2024, 15128, 15905 & 31128/2023 and WA.Nos.59/2024, 3260/2023, 2963/2023, 2915, 2917, 2918, 2924/2023, 575/2023, 3298/2023, 794, 1130, 2211, 2386, 850, 2893, 3459, 3465, 3469, 3483, 3227/2023 and WMP.Nos.9999, 10000/2022 & 8948, 9265, 18124, 2911/2023, 26163/2022, 18510, 20277, 20278/2023, 4466/2024, 14621, 29635, 15373, 30756, 30757/2023 & CMP.Nos.363/2024, 26556, 24584, 24587, 24182, 24186, 24196, 24253/2023, 3990/2024, 26820/2023, 7647, 11353, 19187, 20049, 24052, 28300, 28314, 28337, 28421, 26404/2023 & WMP [MD].Nos.6214, 8305, 11557, 11918, 13340, 13077, 11133, 11134, 11735, 11736, 11876, 6858, 7696, 7697, 8637, 7950, 13162, 8509, 10441, 11502, 11503, 11518, 11517, 11588, 11592, 11593, 11892, 11890, 11975, 13976, 3177, 3180, 19726, 7745, 9763, 9162, 9705, 9837, 11151, 12712, 12726, 12727, 14821/2023, 7695/2024, 15059, 13234, 17473, 17474, 18809, 8566, 11122, 6333, 8608, 8610/2023, 676, 3481/2022, 2489, 4526, 4794, 5069, 7784, 5232, 5975, 5977, 7643, 7644, 8945, 8538, 8540, 8562, 9189, 9351, 9353, 10916, 11287, 11289, 11443, 11444, 12543, 12789,13235, 13236, 18815, 18816, 25675/2023.
Decided On : 02-08-2024
The challenged provisions, specifically Section 77-A of the Registration Act, have been declared unconstitutional by the court due to excessive delegation of powers, lack of statutory guidelines, and contravention of constitutional principles such as judicial independence and separation of powers (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
ORDER :
(S.S. Sundar, J.)
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of certiorari calling for the records and quash the proceedings before the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.1431/E3/2022 dated 16.03.2022.)
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against 3 rd and 4th respondents registering the fraudulent registration and to cancel the fraudulent sale deeds in Doc.No.2706/2021 dated 06.07.2021 and subsequent registrations made before the 3 rd respondent office based on the representation dated 13.01.2023.)
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 and 4 herein to conduct the enquiry for cancelling the documents No.235/2011 Settlement Deed and the Sale Deeds Doc.Nos.488/2016, 688/2016 on the file of the 5th respondent by considering the petitioner's accordance with law within time stipulated by this Court.)
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to conduct the enquiry in connection with the fraudulent registration of the sale deed Doc.No.466/2011 on the file of the 2nd respondent office by considering petitioner's representation dated 03.02.2023 to act upon the circular letter No.41530/U1/2017 dated 25.03.2022 issued by the Inspector General of Registration in accordance with law)
(Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 01.03.2023 made u/s.77-A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act for contemplation of enquiry relating to the cancellation of the fraudulent registration of the documents namely Sale Deeds dated 24.09.2018, 15.02.2023 and registered on 27.02.2023 executed by the respondents No.3 to 6 herein and registered the same with the office of the 2nd respondent without any legal right over the property under the said documents within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.)
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to cancel the sale deed for impersonation as one petitioner's deceased father namely Sethu son of Vellaisamy [died on 27.03.2023] in his own land in S.No.337/5, to an extent of 0.12.2 hectare and S.No.373/3, to an extent of 0.30.0 hectare in Athappadaki Revenue Village, Kalayarkovil Taluk, Sivagangai District by one namely, V.Ramu vide registered Doc.No538/2015 dated 23.03.2015 in the 3 rd respondent office and consequently allow further registration in future by the proper owners of the lands based on the petitioner's representation on 27.03.2023 within a stipulated time to be fixed by this Court.)
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the fraudulent settlement deed executed by the 6th respondent in favour of the 7th respondent in Doc.No.122/2013 dated 11.01.2013 before the 4th respondent in respect of the petitioner property in S.NO.61/1, situated at Visalur Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.)
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of certiorari calling for the records permission to the Impugned Order in En.2326/Aa/2020 dated 11.04.2023 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal.)
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 10.04.2023 demanding to cancel the fraudulent sale deed executed by his father by giving false statement in the name of the 4th respondent and within time frame that may be fixed by this Cour
K.T.Plantation Private Limited and Others Vs. State of Karnataka
Sitaram and Bros. v. State of Rajasthan
State of Gujarat and Another Vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal and Others
State of Rajasthan v. Basanth Nagata reported in (2005) 4 CTC 606 (SC)
State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar
Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director, CBI and another
Sudha Ravikumar and Another Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, HR&CE
Suresh Kumar Koushal Vs. Naz Foundation 2014 1 SCC 1
Thirumalai Chemicals Limited v. Union of India reported in 2011 (6) SCC 739
Thota Ganga Lakshmi and Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in 2010 15 SCC 207
Thota Ganga Laxmi v. State of A.P.
Trimbak Damodhar Raipurkar Vs. Assaram Hiraman Patil and Others reported in AIR 1966 SC 1758
Union of India Vs. Madras Bar Association reported in 2010 11 SCC 1
Union of India Vs. Sukumar Pyne reported in AIR 1966 SC 1206
Union of India Vs. Tshar Ranjan Mohanty and Others reported in 1994 5 SCC 450
Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala Vs. The State of Bombay and Others
Veena Singh v. District Registrar
Vijay v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 6 SCC 289
Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Others reported in 2020 9 SCC 1
Virtual Soft Systems Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Yanala Malleshwari Vs. Smt.Ananthula Sayamma reported in AIR 2007 AP 57 FB
Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2016 3 SCC 183
A.N.Parasuraman and others v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1989) 4 SCC 683
AIR India Vs. Nergesh Meerza and Others reported in AIR 1981 SC 1829
Arun Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2007 1 SCC 732
Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited Vs. S.P.Velayutham and Others reported in 2022 8 SCC 210
C.B.Gautam Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 1993 1 SCC 78
C.I.T Vs. Vatika Township Private Limited reported in 2015 1 SCC 1
Calcutta Gujarati Education Society Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation
Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Mumbai Vs. Essar Teleholdings Limited
Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C.Mazdoor Congress and others
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Others reported in AIR 1991 SC 101
Dharappa v. Bijapur Coop. Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd.
E.R.Kalaivan Vs. The Inspector General of Registration and Others reported in 2009 4 CTC 618
EID Parry (I) Ltd. v. G. Omkar Murthy
Ex-Captain K.C.Arora and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in 1984 3 SCC 281
G.J.Raja Vs. Tejraj Surana reported in 2019 19 SCC 469
G.Mohan Rao and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in 2022 12 SCC 696
Govind Das and Others Vs. Income Tax Officer and Another reported in 1976 1 SCC 906
Hamdard Dawakana Wakf Lal Kuan
Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India
Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shayamsunder (1962) 2 SCR 339
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1994 4 SCC 602
Horil Vs. Keshav and Others reported in AIR 2012 SC 1262
Imagic Creative (P) Ltd. v. CCT
Indian Aluminium Company and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others
Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank
Inspector General of Registration
Jayanthilal Amratlal Shodhan v. F.N.Rana, Commissioner, Baroda Division
K.Panchapagesa Ayyar Vs. K.Kalyanasundaram Ayyar AIR 1957 Mad 472
K.T. Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala
L.Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India 1997 3 SCC 261
L.R.Brothers Indo Flora Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2021 19 SCC 576
M.E. Moolla & Sons Ltd. v. Officid Assignee, Rangoon
M.Karunanidhi Vs. Union of India and another
M.P. Shikshak Congress v. R.P.F. Commr.
M.Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. V.Srinivasa Pillai and Others reported in Vol XXXVIII 1933 LW 1000
M/s.Latif Estate Line India Ltd. v. Hadeeja Ammal reported in (2011) 1 LW 673
Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Another
Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India reported in 2010 11 SCC 67 and in 2014 10 SCC 1
Manish Kumar v. Union of India and another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 1
Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited v. Union of India and others
P.Mahendran and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 1990 1 SCC 411
Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. Sub Registrar
S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 703
S.P.Sampath Kumar Vs. Union of India
Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in 2016 10 SCC 767
None of the listed cases explicitly state that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law in subsequent decisions. The list does include some cases with language indicating they have been upheld or are constitutionally valid, but there are no clear references to any case being overruled or discredited. Therefore, based solely on the information provided, there are no cases that can be definitively categorized as bad law or overruled.
1. **Confirmed/Valid Cases:**
<00100000650>: Validates the constitutional validity of Kerala Electricity Surcharge (Levy and Collection) Act, 1989, and its provisions.
<00100060335>: Affirms that statutes are generally prospective unless expressly made retrospective, supporting the principle of legislative intent.
<00100066823>: Recognizes the judicial nature of the Central Government exercising appellate powers under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956.
<00100040553>: Clarifies the primacy of the President's assent over conflicting provisions in State Co-operative Societies Acts, endorsing the hierarchy of laws.
<00100054466>: Affirms Parliament’s power to create tribunals and the constitutional validity of certain provisions, though it also declares specific sections unconstitutional.
<00100006765>: Validates the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control Stock Declaration) Order, 1981, and the directives issued under it.
<00100076225>: Affirms that breach of contract conditions prevents equitable claims, and discusses the nature of amendments.
<00100038848>: Upholds the validity of amendments to Income Tax Rules, 1962, and the principle of classification under Article 14.
<00100051587>: Clarifies the scope of mining lease rights and doctrines related to promissory estoppel and desuetude.
<00100040188>: Confirms that prior to amendments, penalties for concealment of income could not be levied in the absence of positive income.
<00300009509>: Clarifies the limited scope of Encumbrance Certificates regarding title and registration questions.
<00100057818>: Validates the constitutionality of the Orissa Act and related provisions, including confiscation procedures.
<00100060335>: Reiterates the general rule of statutes operating prospectively unless explicitly retrospective, supporting legislative intent.
<00100054449>: Clarifies that certain provisions are prospective and not retrospective, affirming the principle of legislative interpretation.
<00100066823>: Reaffirms the judicial nature of the Central Government’s appellate functions under the Companies Act.
<00100050554>: Upholds the constitutionality of Kerala Electricity Surcharge (Levy and Collection) Act, 1989, including its Section 11.
<00100036600>: Recognizes that laws enacted for community benefit are typically prospective in operation.
<00100006009>: Confirms that Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1995, is prospective, not affecting rights on the date of adjudication.
<00100054466>: Validates the creation of tribunals by Parliament, provided they conform to constitutional standards.
<00100006765>: Validates Gujarat Order, emphasizing the lawfulness of executive orders under the jurisdiction.
<00100038848>: Upholds amendments to Income Tax Rules and the principle of classification under Article 14.
<00100051587>: Recognizes doctrines relevant to mining leases and promissory estoppel.
<00100076225>: Affirms contractual principles and the nature of amendments.
2. **Cases with Constitutional Validity or Principles Confirmed:**
<00100027090>: Declares Section 22-A of the Rajasthan Registration Act unconstitutional, establishing limits on how registration prohibitions can be enacted.
<00100059725>: Clarifies the scope of insolvency proceedings under Maharashtra law, emphasizing the supremacy of the Insolvency Code.
<00100053493>: Discusses the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC, emphasizing that it regulates conduct and is not inherently unconstitutional, despite misuse.
<00100075611>: Clarifies the scope of challenge to document execution and registration procedures, emphasizing jurisdictional limits.
<00100038848>: Reaffirms the validity of Income Tax amendments and classification principles.
3. **Other Notable Confirmations:**
<00100005568>: Applies State and Central Acts for gratuity claims, confirming their applicability.
<00100054466>: Discusses the power of Parliament to establish tribunals, with conditions.
<00100012650>: States that statutes generally operate prospectively unless explicitly retrospective, a core legislative principle.
<00100066454>: Affirms rights of daughters under Hindu Succession Act, 1956, post-amendment.
<00100054449>: Clarifies the prospective nature of certain statutory provisions.
<00100051587>: Discusses legal doctrines applicable to mining leases.
<00100076225>: Deals with contractual breach and amendments.
<00100034059>: The case on Provident Fund applicability appears to be a straightforward statutory interpretation, with no subsequent treatment indicated.
<02100041625>: Provides detailed ratios on sale deed cancellation, with no indication of subsequent treatment.
<00100063756>: Discusses the prospective nature of Section 143A, but no subsequent treatment or overruling noted.
<00100027090>: Declares certain registration provisions unconstitutional; no indication of subsequent treatment or overruling.
<00100008217>: About notices under municipal law, no subsequent treatment indicated.
<00100005568>: Application of State and Central Acts for gratuity, no subsequent treatment indicated.
<00100058701>: Discusses powers of registration officers and remedies, but no subsequent treatment indicated.
<00100007835>: Constitutionality of Section 80P(2)(a)(iii), no subsequent treatment indicated.
<00100001846>: Discusses constitutional jurisdiction of High Courts and Tribunals, no subsequent treatment indicated.
<00100066531>: Principles of exemption clauses and prospectivity are discussed, but no subsequent treatment indicated.
<00100003312>: Strikes down Section 59A of Kerala General Sales Tax Act, but no subsequent treatment or overruling indicated.
<00100059725>: Discusses insolvency law and principles, with no subsequent treatment indicated.
<02100071980>: Clarifies registration procedures, no subsequent treatment indicated.
<00100040188>: Prior to amendments, penalties for concealment of income were not levied; no subsequent treatment indicated.
<00300009509>: Clarifies scope of Encumbrance Certificates, no subsequent treatment indicated.
<00100057818>: Validates Orissa Act provisions, no subsequent treatment indicated.
<00100060335>: Reiterates general principle of prospective operation of statutes, no subsequent treatment indicated.
<00100054466>: Discusses tribunal creation, no subsequent treatment indicated.
<00100006765>: Validates Gujarat Order, no subsequent treatment indicated.
<00100038848>: Validates amendments to Income Tax Rules, no subsequent treatment indicated.
<00100051587>: Discusses doctrines related to mining leases, no subsequent treatment indicated.
<00100076225>: Contractual principles, no subsequent treatment indicated.
**Summary:**
Most cases are foundational or confirmatory in nature, with no explicit indication that they have been overruled or discredited in subsequent rulings. The absence of such references suggests that, within the provided data, none of these cases are definitively treated as bad law or have been overruled.
**Source :** M.S.Anandhan @ Venkatraman vs M.A.Mahalingam - Madras Dayana Rexaline vs Inspector General Of Registration - Madras M. Karunanidhi VS Union Of India - Supreme Court S. P. Sampath Kumar: J. N. Gupta: D. J. Somaiya VS Union Of India - Supreme Court M. P. Shikshak Congress VS R. P. F. Commissioner, Jabalpur - Supreme Court Yanala Malleshwari VS Ananthula Sayamma - Andhra Pradesh MANISH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - Supreme Court E. R. Kalaivan VS The Inspector General of Registration & Another - Madras G. J. Raja VS Tejraj Surana - Supreme Court State Of Rajasthan VS Basant Nahata - Supreme Court Calcutta Gujrat Education Society s VS Calcutta Municipal Corporation - Supreme Court E. I. D. Parry (I) LTD. VS G. Omkar Murthy - Supreme Court K. C. Arora: A. S. Parmar VS State Of Haryana - Supreme Court Satya Pal Anand VS State of M. P. - Supreme Court National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation Of India LTD. VS Union Of India - Supreme Court S. C. Jaisinghani: C. K. Tikku: Mohan Chandra Joshi VS Union Of India: Commissioner Of Income-tax: Union Of India - Supreme Court Union Of India VS Tushar Ranjan Mohanty - Supreme Court L. Chandra Kumar VS Union Of India - Supreme Court Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair VS State Of Kerala - Supreme Court Union Of India VS Sukumar Pune - Supreme Court K. Panchapagesa Ayyar VS K. Kalyanasundaram Ayyar and others - Madras L. R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd. VS Commissioner of Central Excise - Supreme Court State Of Kerala VS Travancore Chemicals And Manufacturing Company - Supreme Court State Of W. B. : Habib Mohammad, The State Of Hyderabad The State of Mysore VS Anwar Ali Sarkar - Supreme Court Hitendra Vishnu Thakur VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court Sudha Ravi Kumar VS Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai - Madras INNOVENTIVE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS ICICI BANK - Supreme Court Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - Supreme Court . VS . - Supreme Court Trimbak Damodhar Raipurkar VS Assaram Hiraman Patil - Supreme Court Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited VS S. P. Velayutham - Supreme Court Madras Bar Association VS Union Of India - Supreme Court Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. VS Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - Supreme Court Vijay VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court Jayantilal Amratlal Shodhan VS F. N. Rana - Supreme Court Shyam Sunder VS Ram Kumar - Supreme Court Indian Aluminium Company LTD. VS State Of Kerala - Supreme Court DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS D. T. C. MAZDOOR CONGRESS ANB - Supreme Court R. K. Jain VS Union Of India - Supreme Court Latif Estate Line India Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director VS Hadeeja Ammal - Madras Thota Ganga Laxmi VS Government of Andhra Pradesh - Supreme Court Govind Das VS Income Tax Officer - Supreme Court Madras Bar Association VS Union of India - Supreme Court G. MOHAN RAO VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU - Supreme Court Saurashtra Oil Mills Association, Gujarat VS State Of Gujarat - Supreme Court M. Ramaswami Chettiar VS V. Srinivasa Pillai - Madras A. N. Parasuraman VS State Of T. N. - Supreme Court Virtual Soft Systems LTD. VS Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi - Supreme Court M. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY VS SUB-REGISTRAR, BANGALORE - Karnataka Inspector General, Chennai VS J. Barathan - Madras Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal Etc. VS State of Bihar - Supreme Court K. T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Karnataka - Supreme Court COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI VS ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER - Supreme Court Vasanlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala: Pratap Spinning, Weaving, Manufacturing Company LTD. VS State Of Bombay (Now Maharashtra) - Supreme Court Thirumalai Chemicals Limited VS Union of India (UOI) - Supreme Court Dharappa Sangappa Nandyal VS Bijapur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union LTD. - Supreme Court Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. VS Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala - Supreme Court S. Manoharan VS Deputy Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Horil VS Keshav & Anr. - Supreme Court COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, NEW DELHI VS VATIKA TOWNSHIP - Supreme Court State Of Gujarat: Mathuradas Mohanlal Kedia VS Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni: S. D. Munshaw - Supreme Court Union of India VS R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association - Supreme Court Subramanian Swamy VS Director, Central Bureau of Investigation - Supreme Court Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Company Ltd VS L`Office Cherifien des Phosphates and Unitramp SA - UK Case Law M. E. MOOLLA SONS, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) VS OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RANGOON AND - Supreme Court C. B. Gautam VS Union Of India - Supreme Court P. Mahendran: Malteesh Y. Annigeri VS State of Karnataka - Supreme Court Suresh Kumar Koushal VS NAZ Foundation - Supreme Court Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia VS Union Of India - Supreme Court Sitaram And Brothers VS State Of Rajasthan - Supreme Court Veena Singh (Dead) Through LR VS District Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R) - Supreme Court Sasikala VS Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Collector, Devakottai, Sivagangai District - Madras Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. VS Union of India - Supreme Court Katta Sujatha Reddy VS Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. - Supreme Court Air India LTD. : K. Amal Chopra: Prabha Rani: F. P. L. Toughe: Menka Nathani VS Nergesh Meerza: I. A. G: I. A. C: I. A. C: I. A. G - Supreme Court Arun Kumar VS Union of India - Supreme Court
Section 77-A of the Registration Act is unconstitutional for excessive delegation of powers to cancel registered documents, violating principles of judicial independence and due process.
The main legal point established is that the power to cancel registered documents under Section 77A of the Registration Act is limited to cases of fraud or impersonation within specific provisions of....
A vendor cannot unilaterally cancel a registered sale deed as it conflicts with property law principles; disputes must be resolved in civil court.
The Registrar of documents does not possess the authority to cancel registrations based on allegations of fraud or forgery without substantive evidence, and such matters must be resolved through civi....
A writ petition is not maintainable to challenge the registration of a cancellation deed executed unilaterally by the settlor of a settlement deed. The proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to fil....
The constitutionality of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 was upheld, establishing that legislative provisions to prevent fraudulent transfers are valid and necessary for public policy prote....
The power to cancel a document under the Registration Act, 1908, is limited, and civil disputes should be adjudicated by the Competent Civil Court of law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.