Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Difference Between Movable and Immovable Property

By

This article is written by a second-year student of Delhi University, Faculty of Law, on a very indispensable topic in Property Law. 

Movable Property



Definition -
    1. Transfer of Property Act, of 1882 does not define "movable Property" explicitly however movable property is that property which can be moved from one place to another.
    2. Section 2 Sale of Goods Act -  Movable property includes stocks, shares, growing crops, and grass. 
    3. General Clause Act, 1897- Movable property shall mean the property of every description except immovable property 
  1. Registration
    • To Transfer a movable Property registration is not required by law. 
  2. Examples of movable property are jewelry, cars Etc.


Immovable property 


  1. Definition -
    1. Immovable property are those properties that are unable to change their place.
    2.  "Indian Registration Act,1908" immovable property includes ;
      • Land 
      • Building 
      • Hereditary allowance (payable out of income of land ) 
      • Right to ways 
      • Lights 
      • Ferries 
      • Fisheries
      • Any benefit arises out of land 
      • Things attached to the earth. 
    3. "General Clause Act" , 1897 - Section 3(26)  of  it includes -
      • Land 
      • Benefits arise out of land
      • Things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. 
    4. Section 3 of TPA lays that "Immovable property" does not include-
      • Standing timber 
      • Growing crops
      • Grass. 
  2. Registration - According to TPA,1872, to transfer an immovable property, the instrument used for the transfer must be registered.
  3. Attestation - The instrument transferring the immovable property also has to be attested by at least two witnesses, according to TPA,1872

Some case laws to clear the concepts of movable and immovable are;
  1. Shantabai vs state of Bombay, 1958 (Discussed benefit arising out of the land)
  2. Bamadev Panigrahi vs Manorama Raj,1974 (Movable property as in the immovable property things attached to the earth we see the intention of the party to attach that property to the earth for temporary time or permanent), etc. 
                                                                ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more