• Judgments-Y

  • A | B | D | E | F | G | H | I | | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z  

    Judgments-Index

    • Yahoo Inc. Vs. Sanjay Patel- DHC-01.09.2016-CS (OS) 949 of 2015- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2 CPC- Trade Mark Petition [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Yash Thomas Mannully, Advocate Vs. Union Of India & Others, WP(C).No. 27960 of 2011 (S), Judgment Dated- 21.08.2015, Ashok Bhushan, CJ, A.M.Shaffique, J, Kerla High Court- Civil Liability For Nuclear Damage Act, 2010- Sections 3(1), 4(2) and proviso, 4(4), 5, 6, 9(2), 15(2),16(5), 18(b), 19, 20, 32(10), 35 and 38(1)- Constitutional Validity of the said procisions Challenged- The said provisions were alleged to be ultra vires the Constitution of India, further contending that the same interfere with the right to life of the citizens guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and are also violative of Article 14, being arbitrary and unreasonable. Also contended that the provisions vest with the authorities unbridled powers without appropriate checks and balance- HC upholds the Constitutional Validity of the Act, 2010- Judgment Citation: Yash Thomas Mannully, Advocate Vs. Union Of India & Others, WP(C).No. 27960 of 2011 (S), Judgment Dated- 21.08.2015, Ashok Bhushan, CJ, A.M.Shaffique, J, Kerla High Court [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Yogesh Neema Vs. State Of M.P. - SC-12.01.2016- Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 10742 Of 2008- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013- Section 24- Compensation Not paid- Validity of  Land Acquisition-Whether Acquisition lapsed?- Or higher interest U/S-Section 34 of the 1894 Act entails? [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Yogish Arora Vs.  Jennette Yogish Arora @ Miss Jennette Dsouza - Matters under Article 227 No. - 2313 of 2018 - AllHC-30.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Yogita Dasgupta  Vs. Kaustav Dasgupta- DelHC-27.07.2016-Mat.App.-(F.C.)-7 Of 2014- Property- Husband- Wife- In the name of wife- Relevant Factors- (1) Intention of the parties- whether the parties intended that the property is for the benefit of the wife exclusively or for the family as a whole. (2) Whether the husband wished that the property was to belong to the wife or that the property had been purchased for her benefit- (3) The nature of the transaction and the surrounding circumstance (4) From the nature of the transaction and the surrounding circumstance, the husband is the actual owner of the suit property that had been purchased benami in the name of his wife- (5) Whether there acted a statutory presumption under S-3(2) of the Act of 1988 that property was purchased exclusively for the benefit of the wife or for the family as a whole- (6) Whether the onus is on the husband to rebut the statutory presumption– (7) Whether the property was purchased by the husband “out of love and affection” or some other reasons, if any- (8) There cannot be general assumption that where parties live together in a matrimonial home and there is no property owned by either of them, the purchase of premises in the name of the wife, has to necessarily be for her benefit- (9) If a fair inference can be drawn that the property is for the benefit of the family, the husband is deemed to have discharged the onus cast on him- Held, “18. Here it would be important to recognize that a plain interpretation of Section 3 would be firstly, that benami transactions are barred; the exception would be, inter alia, where the husband acquires the property in the wife’s name. Secondly, this exception has an attendant presumption that the property had been purchased for the wife’s benefit. However, the presumption is rebuttable, as the contrary (i.e. that the property was not for the benefit or the wife, or was for the benefit of another or others) can be proved. What is the net result if the contrary is proved? Would the property then be treated as benami and suffer the bar under Section 4? We think not. The structure of Section 3 is such that two categories of what would otherwise be benami acquisitions are kept out from its sweep-purchase in the name of wife, and purchase in the name of unmarried daughter. It would indeed be anomalous if it were held that Parliament.- Further held: “The correct interpretation would be, in our opinion that the class of transactions covered by Section 3 is treated as a class apart. It is only the inter se rights of the disputing parties, which is dependent upon the party asserting that the acquisition was not for the benefit of the wife/daughter, proving it to be so. Thus, for instance, if a dishonest debtor were to use all or substantial monies under threat of imminent legal action by the creditors to recover dues, for the purchase of property in his wife’s name, and the creditor were to prove that it was not for the benefit of the wife, but to defeat their rights, Section 4 cannot be said to bar the relief. In such event, the relief of securing a decree to recover money, which can be traced to the purchase of property, or an appropriate decree of cancellation or declaration and sale, would lie. Therefore, in any given case if the party asserts that the purchase was not for the benefit of the wife or unmarried daughter, it only means that he discharges the onus of proof and qualifies for the relief he seeks, because the controlling part of Section 3 (2) operates and treats the transaction as not a benami transaction.- The Husband entitled to the injunctive relief- Legal Provisions involved: Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988- Judgments Relied On:- Nand Kishore Mehra Vs. Sushila Mehra, AIR 1995 SC 215- Jaydal Poddar Vs. Mst. Bibi Hazra, AIR 1974 SC 171- Gapadibai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 2 SCC 327- Harihar Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh and Ors. (1975) 1 SCC 212- Prakash Rattan Lal v. Mankey Ram, ILR 2010 (3) Delhi 11- Valliammal Vs. Subramaniam & Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 233- G. Mahalingappa Vs. G.M. Savitha (2005) 6 SCC 441- V. Shankaranarayana Rao & Ors. Vs. Leelavathi & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 732 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Youth Bar Association Of India Versus Union Of India And Others- Writ Petition-Crl.- No.68 Of 2016 - Sc-07.11.2016 not uploaded in the SC Portal [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation-Criminal Appeal No.-  730 Of 2013-SC-09.05.2013- (2013) 7 SCC 439- Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar- Civil Appeal No. 459 of 1980- SC-11.12.1986- (1987) 1 SCC 204- 1987 AIR 558- HUF- Hindu Succession Act 1956- Beneficial legislation-Whether it should be read reasonably and justly- Jurisdiction of appellate authority to admit additional evidence- Also, held, merely on account of inheritance of ancestral property an HUF does not come into existence [Full PDF Judgment].

    Kindly CLICK HERE or e-mail us at office@hellocounsel.com if you are facing any Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empanelled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.

    A | B | D | E | F | G | H | I | | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z  

Live2Support.com
All original content on these pages is fingerprinted and certified by Digiprove