https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105819 A consent order backed by an affidavit of undertaking was held binding on the appellant, despite objections that it was a third party, the signatory lacked authority, and the undertaking was given under mistake of fact. The Court treated those objections as inconsistent with the appellant's conduct and the benefit taken under the compromise. It also held that the consent arrangement did not create or transfer any right in immovable property and therefore did not require compulsory registration. On that basis, the undertaking and consent decree supported execution against the appellant's property if the decree remained unsatisfied. en-us Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Sep 2013 09:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105819 A consent order backed by an affidavit of undertaking was held binding on the appellant, despite objections that it was a third party, the signatory lacked authority, and the undertaking was given under mistake of fact. The Court treated those objections as inconsistent with the appellant's conduct and the benefit taken under the compromise. It also held that the consent arrangement did not create or transfer any right in immovable property and therefore did not require compulsory registration. On that basis, the undertaking and consent decree supported execution against the appellant's property if the decree remained unsatisfied. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105819