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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        2018 (4) TMI 732 - HC - Companies Law

        📋
        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

        Property Partition & Injunction Decree: Fair Asset Distribution The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and injunction against the defendants regarding a property in New Delhi. The court granted a preliminary decree ...
                          Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                            Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                                Property Partition & Injunction Decree: Fair Asset Distribution

                                The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and injunction against the defendants regarding a property in New Delhi. The court granted a preliminary decree for partition, delineating the shares of each party. Subsequently, a final decree was passed for the partition and sale of the property. The court declared the gift deeds null and void, ensuring a fair distribution of assets among the parties involved.




                                Issues: Suit for partition and injunction, Amendment of plaint, Ownership of property, Family agreement, Gift deeds, Written statement filing, Evidence examination, Property assessment, Agreement authenticity, Final arguments, Preliminary decree for partition, Final decree for partition, Sale of property, Gift deeds validity

                                1. Suit for partition and injunction:
                                The three plaintiffs filed a suit against five defendants for partition and injunction. The suit involved claims related to ownership of a property in New Delhi, purchased for the benefit of the family. The plaintiffs alleged contributions towards the property's construction and challenged the defendants' right to gift portions of the property.

                                2. Amendment of plaint:
                                The plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint during the suit to include claims regarding gift deeds related to the property. The defendants had served an advance copy of the written statement disclosing the gift deeds, prompting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint to challenge the validity of these deeds.

                                3. Ownership of property:
                                The plaintiffs claimed that the property belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and was assessed as such with the Income Tax Authorities. They detailed the family structure, contributions, and agreements regarding the division of assets. The defendants' actions, including gifting portions of the property, were contested by the plaintiffs.

                                4. Family agreement:
                                An agreement among family members dated October 25, 2006, was presented as evidence. The agreement outlined the distribution of assets among family members after the demise of the head of the family, specifying the shares each member would inherit. The authenticity and implications of this agreement were discussed during the proceedings.

                                5. Gift deeds:
                                The defendants had executed gift deeds gifting portions of the property to specific family members. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of these gift deeds as null and void, alleging that the defendant had no right to gift the property. The validity and impact of these gift deeds on the partition suit were crucial issues in the case.

                                6. Written statement filing:
                                The defendants' right to file a written statement was closed by a court order, leading to disputes regarding the filing and misplacement of the written statement. The closure of this right affected the defenses available to the defendants during the proceedings.

                                7. Evidence examination:
                                The plaintiffs presented evidence, including assessment orders and agreements, to support their claims regarding the property's ownership and the family agreements. The examination of witnesses and documents played a significant role in establishing the facts and contentions of the parties.

                                8. Property assessment:
                                Assessment orders by the Income Tax Department were cited to establish the property's status as belonging to the HUF. These orders provided insights into the history of ownership and the family's financial dealings related to the property.

                                9. Agreement authenticity:
                                The authenticity and relevance of the family agreement dated October 25, 2006, were crucial in determining the distribution of assets and the rights of family members. The terms of the agreement and its implications on the partition suit were subject to scrutiny and interpretation.

                                10. Final arguments:
                                The defendants sought adjournment during the final arguments, citing the need for clarifications. However, the court emphasized the closure of certain procedural rights and the finality of previous orders, impacting the admissibility of new arguments at later stages of the proceedings.

                                11. Preliminary and Final decree for partition:
                                Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the court granted a preliminary decree for the partition of the property among the parties involved. The shares of each party were delineated, leading to the passing of a final decree for the partition and sale of the property.

                                12. Sale of property and Gift deeds validity:
                                The final decree allowed for the sale of the property and the distribution of sale proceeds among the parties as per their declared shares. The court also declared the gift deeds null and void to the extent that they conflicted with the shares determined in the partition decree, ensuring a fair distribution of assets.

                                This detailed analysis covers the key issues, arguments, and outcomes of the judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court in the mentioned case.
                                Full Summary is available for active users!
                                Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                                Topics

                                ActsIncome Tax
                                No Records Found