Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Description of KIS Property in Spreading - The property described as Four sets of Second-hand KIS brand still photography processing and Printing Equipment in the invoice and Bill of Entry. The goods are identified specifically as second-hand KIS brand still photography processing and printing equipment, including KIS Mini Lab system and KIS Colour Analyser. The declaration of goods and their description was consistent across documents, with the declared value based on the invoice and Bill of Entry details ["Singapore Colour Centre VS Collector of Customs - Customs, Excise And Gold Appellate Tribunal"].
Main Points and Insights:
There is no indication that the description can be dismissed on the ground of spreading or any other reason; the description is detailed and supported by documentation ["Singapore Colour Centre VS Collector of Customs - Customs, Excise And Gold Appellate Tribunal"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Singapore Colour Centre VS Collector of Customs - Customs, Excise And Gold Appellate Tribunal"]
In property transactions, sales, or legal proceedings, the accuracy of property descriptions is often a point of contention. Imagine a scenario where a sale notice or court plaint contains minor errors or vague details—does this alone warrant dismissing the entire case? The question arises: if proceeding kis description kis description of the property in the spreading should can should can be dismissed on the ground of such inaccuracies? Generally, courts take a pragmatic approach, prioritizing whether the property can be reasonably identified over demanding pixel-perfect descriptions. This blog explores key legal principles, court findings, and practical insights to clarify when vague descriptions pose no threat and when they might.
Courts typically hold that a description of the property in a spreading (execution sale) or similar proceeding should not be dismissed solely on grounds of inaccuracies or vagueness, provided the property can be properly identified through boundaries or other specific features. The primary requirement is ascertainability—not flawless wording. As established in relevant judgments, A property can be identified either by boundary or by any other specific description Subhaga VS Shobha - 2006 5 Supreme 372.
This principle ensures technicalities do not derail legitimate transactions. Minor discrepancies, such as omitted details or slight errors, do not invalidate proceedings if boundaries or landmarks allow clear identification Subhaga VS Shobha - 2006 5 Supreme 372.
Law recognizes flexible identification methods. Strict perfection is unnecessary; reasonable identification via boundary marks or features prevails. The judgment emphasizes: A property can be identified either by boundary or by any other specific description Subhaga VS Shobha - 2006 5 Supreme 372. Even with discrepancies, courts favor boundaries unless contradicted by evidence.
In Sheo Ram v. Mauji, relinquishments tied to suit matters do not require registration, as they do not create new titles. Such decrees remain admissible for rights establishment Som Dev VS Rati Ram - 2006 7 Supreme 202. This supports upholding proceedings despite descriptive issues.
Flexibility shines in contract enforcement. Courts permit amending plaint or agreement descriptions: in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale, it is permissible to amend a part of the description of the suit property not only in the plaint but also in the agreement Puran Ram VS Bhaguram - 2008 2 Supreme 166. If overall identity persists, dismissal is avoided.
While leniency applies, extremes matter. If descriptions are so vague that identification is impossible, or inconsistent with evidence, dismissal may follow. For instance, in SARFAESI Act auction sales, incomplete notices lacking survey numbers, boundaries, or movable property details violate Rules 6(2) and 8(6), rendering sales invalid. One case noted: the sale notice does not have complete description of sold said immovable property with demarcation and boundaries Soma Papers and Industries VS Bank of India. Here, absent proper details, the entire process was quashed, stressing fair opportunity and valuation sufficiency.
Similarly, in land disputes, failure to specify boundaries or ownership evidence weakens claims. A witness stating mujhe Nahi Maloom Ki Is Plot Ke Uttar, Poorab, Paschim Ya Dakkin Main Kis Kis Ke Plot Hain highlighted irrelevant evidence, leading to remand quashing for possession decisions RAMVIR SINGH VS MAKKHAN SINGH - 2000 Supreme(All) 1087. Courts demand evidence tying descriptions to reality.
Property law echoes this across contexts:- Auction Validity: Sale notices must detail encumbrances, survey numbers, and demarcations. Non-compliance vitiates sales, even if dues could be met via one asset alone Soma Papers and Industries VS Bank of India.- Rent and Eviction Suits: Tenants admitting landlord-tenant relations via estoppel (Evidence Act §115) cannot challenge joint property descriptions later YADAV MOTORS VS HITENDRA KUMAR AHUJA - 2006 Supreme(All) 2169. Vague land claims fail without proof.- Tax and Commodity Descriptions: Even in sales tax, terms like copra include derivatives (e.g., powder) if identity persists post-processing NEW NAGPUR COPRA INDUSTRIES VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 1984 Supreme(Bom) 129. Analogous to property: essence over form.
These reinforce: identifiability trumps minor flaws, but gross vagueness invites scrutiny.
To safeguard proceedings:- Draft Clearly: Always include boundaries, survey numbers, landmarks Subhaga VS Shobha - 2006 5 Supreme 372.- Seek Amendments: For errors in specific performance, amend early Puran Ram VS Bhaguram - 2008 2 Supreme 166.- Evidence Possession/Ownership: Avoid ignorance pleas; file demarcation proofs RAMVIR SINGH VS MAKKHAN SINGH - 2000 Supreme(All) 1087.- Auctions: Comply with SARFAESI rules; value assets separately Soma Papers and Industries VS Bank of India.- Settlements: Limit to suit matters to skip registration Som Dev VS Rati Ram - 2006 7 Supreme 202.
Courts uphold identifiable properties, favoring substance over form.
Vague property descriptions rarely dismiss proceedings alone if boundaries or specifics enable identification. Judicial wisdom, from family settlements to auctions, prioritizes practicality Subhaga VS Shobha - 2006 5 Supreme 372Som Dev VS Rati Ram - 2006 7 Supreme 202Puran Ram VS Bhaguram - 2008 2 Supreme 166. However, ensure compliance to avoid pitfalls like invalid sales Soma Papers and Industries VS Bank of India.
Key Takeaways:- Identifiability via boundaries suffices.- Amendments fix minor issues.- Vague = risky; detailed = safe.
This is general information based on cited cases, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
In the invoice the value of the goods was shown as US $ 8,000/- GIF Madras and the description was given as :- "Four sets of Second-hand KIS brand still photography processing and Printing Equipment." ... KIS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD, for the KIS Mini Lab system as well as KIS Colour Analyser. ... The description of the goods in the Bill of Entry was given as 'Four sets of Second-hand KIS brand Still PHOTOGRAPHY PROCESSING AND PRINTING EQUIPMENT'. The appellants had declare....
He has stated "mujhe Nahi Maloom Ki Is Plot Ke Uttar, Poorab, Paschim Ya Dakkin Main Kis Kis Ke Plot Hain/mujey Yeh Bhi Nahi Maloom Ki Is Plot Ke Baad Kis Kis Ke Plot Hain/society Ki Zameen Gajender Singh Wa Kailash Singh Se Kharidi Thi". ... No document has been filed to show that how much property was purchased by the society and how the plots were demarcated. On the other hand, Santosh Kumar has not even told the boundaries of the plot in dispute. ... Therefore, the remand of the case on above #HL_ST....
Woh yeh batlane ka paband na hoga ki usne kis kis khas admi ko nuksan ada kiya hai. 6. In Harnarayan Jodhraj v. ... The result therefore is that the application stands dismissed with costs. ... I would divide cases of this description into two classes. One class relates to cases in which contracts are made through the agency of kachcha arhtiyas. The other class of cases are those in which the contracts are made with pakka arhtiyas. ... This defence has been upheld by the learned Judge of the Court below and the suit has....
UNPAR NIGRANI KARNE LIYE MANTRALYA NE KYA KIS KIS KARMCHARI KO LAGAYA HAI PLS US ADHIKARI KA NAAM PATA PAD KE SUCHI MANTRALYA KE PASS HAI YA NAHI PLS BATAYA JAI ISKI FULL INFORMATION DI JAI. ... 8) KORONA KIS DAWAYI KE KHANE KE BAD NHI HOTA HAO PLS BATAYA JAI YADI KOI INFORMATION HAI TO. ... for Second Appeal: The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground ... 5) CORONA KIS KARAN SE KEVAL MANAV KO HI HO RAHA HAI ISKI FULL INFORMATION DI JAI YDI KOI HAY TO PLS BATAYA JAI, 6) KYA C....
does not answer the description - oilseed, the expression "copra" in the context means only copra full or in halves but not crushed copra. ... The Commissioner had taken a view - which is supported by the respondents even before us - that copra and copra-kis are commercially two different commodities, they are put to different uses and the relevant entry does not refer to copra simpliciter but as a species of the genus - oilseed and as copra-kis ... All that remains is the consideration of the preliminary point about maintainability of th....
Pada 22.8.91 dan 23.8.91 kedua-dua mereka telah ditangkap olih Polis Rawang kerana disyaki terlibat dalam kis bunoh. Selepas siasatan kedua-dua mereka telah dibebaskan olih Polis Rawang kerana mereka tidak libat dalam kis tersebut. ... Pada 6/9/91 kedua-dua penama ini telah ditangkap, semula olih Polis Petaling Jaya kerana disyaki terlibat dalam kis di Sg Buloh bersabit Sg Buloh rpt: 1789/91. ... One of the Employer's ground in seeking the relief from the High Court is as follows: The Industrial Court erred in law and ac....
Yadi Nahi, To Sambandhit Shramik Kya Hitlabh/chatipurti Pane Ka Adhikari Hai Kis Tithi Se Tatha Kis Anya Vivram Sahit? ... ... Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ... ... . ...
The appellant was said to have approached the respondent's client with intention of obtaining business opportunity using the respondent's business information through KIS. ... [15] The appellant failed to tender independent evidence at trial, to support his contention that different technology is used by KIS. ... [8] In his ground of appeal, the appellant submitted that the learned High Court judge had erred in her findings of breach of confidential clause because the respondent did not meet the three legal requisites on breach of c....
Godrej & Kis Ltd.) decided on 11.9.2002 and C.C. No.17/1999 (Sanjeev Borana vs. Godrej & Kis Ltd.) decided on 5.4.2004. Facts in those cases were similar to the present case.
Yadi Nahin Toh Shramik Kis Upshram/Chhatipurti Paane Ka Adhikari Hai Tatha Kis Vivaran Sahit?" 4. By a detailed order of the date (27.5.2022), Writ-C No. 10510 of 2001 (State of U.P. & Ors. vs.
(iv) Further in sub para (vi) after the names of the culprits, again there is a missing link around the words “Police Station. They refused to register my report saying “Hum kis kis kee baant sune, sikh to bahut mar rahen hen, jo kuchh hoga sab ke saath ikathha hoga.”
It is provided therein that the immovable property should have complete description, so that it can be easily identified. Therefore, the actual location of Suit property could not be determined. In this case, the sale notice does not have complete description of sold said immovable property with demarcation and boundaries. Rule 8(6) of the Rules provides that where movable property is to be sold by way of public auction, the sale notice has to be published in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language and the other in English, giving details of the properties to be ....
“Kya Sewayojkon dwara apne kuchh shrmikon ko avas suvidha athva avas bharra na diya jana uchit tatha/athva baidhanik hai? Yadi nahin, to sambandhit shramika kya laabh/kshatpurti paane ke adhikari hai, kis tithi se tatha anya kis vivaran sahit?” “Whether non-providing of housing facility or housing allowance by the employer to some of its workmen is justified and/or legal. If not, whether the concerned workmen are entitled to any benefit or compensation and from which date and with what details.”
YADI HAN, TO KIS TITHI SE, TATHA KIS ANYA VIVARAN SAHIT?” 1.4.81 SE SENIER SELSMAN PAD PAR VA DINANK 1.1.86 SE DIPO MANAGER GRADE-II PAD PAR PRONNAT KI JANI CHAHIYE?
YE NAHEIN BATAYA KI KAUN SI PROPERTY KIS KIS KI HAI.
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
