LawforAll

▼
Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Sec.122 and 123 of T.P. Act - whether there is any conflict in two earlier decisions Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker v. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker & Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 255 and K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 581 - Apex court held - No - held that the former judgment - clearly rests on the facts of that case. If the gift was conditional and there was no acceptance of the donee it could not operate as a gift. Absolute transfer of ownership in the gifted property in favour of the donee was absent in that case which led this Court to hold that the gift was conditional and had to become operative only after the death of the donee. The judgment is in that view clearly distinguishable and cannot be read to be an authority for the proposition that delivery of possession is an essential requirement for making a valid gift. - and further held thatIn the case at hand as already noticed by us, the execution of registered gift deed and its attestation by two witnesses is not in dispute. It has also been concurrently held by all the three courts below that the donee had accepted the gift. The recitals in the gift deed also prove transfer of absolute title in the gifted property from the donor to the donee. What is retained is only the right to use the property during the lifetime of the donor which does not in any way affect the transfer of ownership in favour of the donee by the donor. and further held thatThe High Court was in that view perfectly justified in refusing to interfere with the decree passed in favour of the donee. This appeal accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any orders as to costs.= CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4195 OF 2008 RENIKUNTLA RAJAMMA (D) BY LRS.. Appellant (s) VERSUS K.SARWANAMMA Respondent (s) = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41773

›
Sec.122 and 123 of T.P. Act - whether there is any conflict in two earlier decisions  Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker v. Pranjivandas  Maganl...

Sec.138 of N.I.Act - Sec.27 of General clauses Act and Sec.114 of Evidence Act - Presumption of service of Statutory Notice under sec.138 - when it was given to correct address - then there is no need to plead specifically that the accused managed and got return the notice un served in the pleadings of complaint - High court erred in quashing the complaint basing on Shakti Travel & Tours which does not hold the field any more. - Apex court held that It is not necessary to aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. and set aside the High court order= CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.8783 of 2013] M/s. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. … Appellant Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah … Respondent = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41790

›
      Sec.138 of N.I.Act - Sec.27 of General clauses Act and Sec.114 of Evidence Act - Presumption of service of Statutory Notice under sec...