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

Shanta Bai v. State of Bombay , 1958

By

Shanta Bai v. State of Bombay, 1958 



Facts

The owner of the forest executed an unregistered document styled as a lease in favor of his wife named Shanta Bai As per the deed, the right was conferred upon her to enter the estate for cutting and taking out bamboo, fuel wood, and teak for consideration of Rs 26,000 for a period of Twelve and half years. At the same time, she was prohibited from cutting teak plants that were under the height of one and a half feet.
Later on "M.P Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950" was passed, which transferred all the rights to the estate. The plaintiff was stopped from cutting trees, by a forest officer. She appealed under Article 32 before the Apex court after the verdict passed by the High Court was against her.  

Plaintiff contention

The contended property was movable and for transferring it doesn't require registration of the document. 

Defendant contention
  1. It is immovable property and the document transferring the said property was unregistered, hence it can not be enforced. 
  2. Section 3 of TPA lays down  Immovable property does not  include :
    1. Standing  timber
    2. Growing crops
    3. Grass 

Issue 

  1. Whether the nature of trees which was mentioned above are movable or immovable?
Ratio Decidendi
1. The Indian Registration Act, of 1908 includes land, buildings, hereditary allowance (payable out of the income of land ), right to ways, lights, ferries, fisheries, and any benefit to arise out of land and things attached to earth.
2. Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 "Immovable property" shall include 
(i) land 
(ii) Benefits arise out of land 
(iii) Things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. 
3. The period is given as twelve and half years which reflects that the purpose of the petitioner was not to cut timber only, she had the purpose to take benefit arose out of the land (derive profit from soil, in way of nourishment).

Judgment

  • Hence, it was proved that she was trying to take benefit from the land in the long term so the court dismissed her appeal. 




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