Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction for possession of the suit property and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing or interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The court held that the late Sardar Nirmal Singh occupied the property as a licensee, and allowing his family to claim ownership would be an abuse of the Benami Act. The court found no fiduciary relationship between the late Raghbir Singh and Sardar Nirmal Singh regarding the property. The suit lacked cause of action, and the ownership claim was barred u/s 4 of the Benami Act. The amendment application relying on Pankaja judgment was misplaced. The suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of CPC. The court issued a mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to hand over vacant possession to defendant no. 1 within four weeks, considering the plaintiff's illegal and unauthorized possession. Mesne profits were awarded from 01.05.2022 for continued illegal possession. The plaintiff's reliefs were dismissed, and actual costs were imposed for abuse of process u/s 35(2) CPC and Delhi High Court Rules, as per Ramrameshwari Devi judgment.
The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction for possession of the suit property and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing or interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The court held that the late Sardar Nirmal Singh occupied the property as a licensee, and allowing his family to claim ownership would be an abuse of the Benami Act. The court found no fiduciary relationship between the late Raghbir Singh and Sardar Nirmal Singh regarding the property. The suit lacked cause of action, and the ownership claim was barred u/s 4 of the Benami Act. The amendment application relying on Pankaja judgment was misplaced. The suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of CPC. The court issued a mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to hand over vacant possession to defendant no. 1 within four weeks, considering the plaintiff's illegal and unauthorized possession. Mesne profits were awarded from 01.05.2022 for continued illegal possession. The plaintiff's reliefs were dismissed, and actual costs were imposed for abuse of process u/s 35(2) CPC and Delhi High Court Rules, as per Ramrameshwari Devi judgment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
