Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court affirms plaintiff's right to enforce charge on pledged car, dismisses defendant's claims, permits car sale.</h1> <h3>Gulamhusain Lalji Sajan Versus Clara D'Souza</h3> The Court maintained jurisdiction over the suit, confirming the plaintiff as a holder in due course entitled to enforce the charge on the pledged car. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Court under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. Plaintiff's status as a holder in due course.3. Enforcement of charge on the pledged car.4. Defendant's claim of being an agriculturist and its implications.5. Validity of the promissory note and alleged conditions attached to it.6. Entitlement to accounts and damages claimed by the defendant.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Court under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act:The defendant claimed to be an agriculturist under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction. The plaintiff contended that even if the defendant was an agriculturist, the suit could still lie in this Court as the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, per Section 3 of the Act. The Court had to determine whether the suit fell under Clause (w) or Clause (x) of Section 3. The Court concluded that the suit did not fall within Clause (w) but under Clause (x), which includes suits for recovery of money due on contracts other than those specified in Clause (w). Thus, the Court maintained jurisdiction.2. Plaintiff's Status as a Holder in Due Course:The defendant contested the plaintiff's status as a holder in due course. The Court examined the transaction and the promissory note and found that the plaintiff, having acquired the note for value and in good faith, was indeed a holder in due course. This status entitled the plaintiff to enforce the charge on the car.3. Enforcement of Charge on the Pledged Car:The plaintiff sought to enforce a charge on the car pledged to Laduck. The Court noted that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant was one of pledge. Under Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transfer of property included the transfer of all interests and legal incidents thereof. The Court confirmed that the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the charge on the car by sale, as per the legal principles governing pledges and hypothecations.4. Defendant's Claim of Being an Agriculturist and Its Implications:The defendant's claim of being an agriculturist aimed to invoke the protections under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Act and concluded that the suit, being for enforcement of a charge on pledged property, did not fall under the suits described in Clause (w) but under Clause (x). Therefore, even if the defendant was an agriculturist, the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit.5. Validity of the Promissory Note and Alleged Conditions Attached to It:The defendant alleged that the promissory note was executed under pressure and with the condition that detailed accounts would be provided. The Court examined the evidence and found that the promissory note was valid and binding. The defendant's claims of conditions and pressure were not substantiated sufficiently to invalidate the note.6. Entitlement to Accounts and Damages Claimed by the Defendant:The defendant requested an account of transactions and claimed damages for the alleged negligence in handling the car. The Court noted that the defendant admitted the hypothecation agreement and the debt. The Court found no sufficient grounds to grant the detailed accounts or damages as claimed by the defendant. The primary focus remained on the enforcement of the charge on the pledged car.Conclusion:The Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to try the suit, the plaintiff was a holder in due course, and was entitled to enforce the charge on the car. The defendant's claims regarding the promissory note and accounts were not upheld. The suit was thus decided in favor of the plaintiff, allowing for the sale of the car to satisfy the debt.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found