#landmark case | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

Tumblr was attacked by a cross-site scripting worm deployed by the Internet troll group GNAA on Dec 3, 2012.

techminsolutions · 3 months

Text

Legal Precision Unveiled: Unraveling the Intricacies of Input Tax Credit Quandaries

Delving deeper into the intricate tapestry of Goods and Services Tax (GST) implications, the saga of Input Tax Credit (ITC) assumes greater complexity, offering a nuanced perspective on the petitioner-assessee’s odyssey. Embedded within the labyrinth of statutory constructs, the petitioner’s invocation of Input Tax Credit (ITC) rights under section 16 of the CGST Act unfolds against the backdrop…

View On WordPress

#assessing authority #Chartered Accountant #GST regulations #Ingram Micro India #Input Tax Credit #judicial scrutiny #judiciary #landmark case #legal documentation #legal intricacies #legal landscape #legal odyssey #legal recalibration #procedural norms #regulatory compliance #Show Cause Notice #State Tax Officer #statutory provisions #tax disputes

0 notes

movingtothefarm · 6 months

Text

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/10/31/realtors-home-sales-verdict/

A Kansas City, Mo., jury unanimously found Tuesday that the National Association of Realtors and other real estate organizations conspired to artificially inflate home sale commissions, in a case that could change how much home sellers pay real estate agents.

Jurors on Tuesday awarded $1.8 billion in damages to about 500,000 Missouri home sellers. The case has been winding through federal courts since 2019, when a group of home sellers alleged in a lawsuit that the National Association of Realtors (NAR), along with real estate firms Keller Williams Realty and HomeServices of America, conspired to keep commissions artificially high.

The plaintiffs pointed to an NAR rule that required sellers to make a nonnegotiable commission offer before listing homes on the property database, the Multiple Listing Service, or MLS, which feeds widely used real estate sites including Zillow. That commission hovers around 5 to 6 percent of the sale price and is paid by the home seller to the sellers’ agent and the buyers’ agent. If sellers do not agree to the commission terms, they go virtually unseen in the market, Ketchmark said.

#real estate #home sales #NAR #commission #MLS #buyers agent #sellers agent #anti trust #landmark case

1 note · View note

teamattorneylex · 9 months

Text

9th National Case Comment Writing Competition Organised by Team Attorneylex: Register by 11th September

About the Organisation: Team Attorneylex is an online platform for law students where they can contribute their legal knowledge and get recognised for their contribution. Along with the other activities, the endeavour is to deliver legal help to the sectors of society that are unable to access existing legal services due to illiteracy and poor economic conditions. About the Competition: The…

View On WordPress

#case brief #Case Comment #Case Comment Writing Competition #Case Summary #delhi government vs lg #landmark case #landmark judgement #recent sc judgements

0 notes

legalstudiesin1 · 1 year

Text

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903)

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, also known as the Minor’s Contract Case, is a landmark legal case in Indian jurisprudence. The case was decided by the Privy Council in London in 1903 and has had a significant impact on contract law in India. The case involved a minor named Dharmodas Ghose who mortgaged his property to a moneylender named Mohori Bibee. At the time of entering into the mortgage…

View On WordPress

#Contract law #Dharmodas Ghose #Indian Contract Act #Landmark Case #Legal Capacity #Legal Precedent #Minor&039;s Contract Case #Mohori Bibee #Privy Council #Voidability of Contracts

0 notes

fjordfolk · 4 months

Text

there's a court case going rn that might end up defining the line between discipline and abuse in dog training in norway.

it's part of a case where an owner is charged with violence towards an animal + not providing sufficient care, and it's interesting for two reasons:

whether or not financial difficulties are a mitigating factor for not providing sufficient medical care (because the owner couldn't afford it, the dog had a broken tibia for six weeks before being taken in for surgery)

deciding whether this video shows 'rough treatment for training purposes' (per the defense) or if it's violence. it's more the general scope and repetition of this type of treatment rather than the specific actions shown that's up for consideration, but it's pretty clear in terms of where the bar might be set. video under the cut

the owner was found guilty and sentenced to four months in prison and losing the right to animal ownership in district court, and the case is now in appellate court with an expected judgement on feb 1st.

Ps. the dog is rehomed and is doing well.

#animal abuse #it's also being framed as 'is it enough to just do your best' and its looking like the answer is 'no'#this being inappropriate is uncontested but the question is 'is it unethical or is it illegal'#not a fun watch #but could be a landmark case - the welfare law is recently updated and its rare to see abuse cases this mild come up #and i say mild because normally. the animals in these cases have stopped being alive.#abuse tw

113 notes · View notes

littlegal100 · 7 months

Text

I am seeing the worst fucking state of humanity with the current events.

And I will say this clearly, anyone who genuinely thinks Isreal has any justification for the pure evil acts they are doing...I hope you realize you are a disgusting genocide-supporting piece of shit.

#yep gonna just say it outloud in case my stance is not clear enough #I am feeling sick with the news i'm hearing #it's also horrid how helpless I fucking feel #I hate this #We are living on a landmark of history #then in 60 years ppl will be all “oh no how could this happen!”#as if that does anything we had genocide before and were still experiencing it now

9 notes · View notes

cuchufletapl · 1 year

Text

Deeply intrigued by the fact that Sonic didn't encountrer an Eggman in the jungle or pirate Shatterspaces but New Yoke City has five.

Similarly, I am also deeply intrigued by the fact that the "clean slate" world that Nine takes Sonic to exists, considering that theoretically the Paradox Prism fragmented into mirror versions of Green Hill and it doesn't look like the Grim is one of them.

Initially I thought that the Chaos Council could be all the alternative Eggmans that should have been part of the different Shatterspaces, which would also mean that there would be five worlds (five versions of Green Hill) in total.

However, none of the New Yoke Eggmans fit with the jungle or pirate universes — plus, the Grim is just barren terrain, no Green Hill landmarks to be seen so far, so I don't think that's it anymore.

There's also the fact that the Chaos Council is just Eggman's different life stages (baby, teenager, 30-something, middle-aged, and old man), which is not the case for the alternative versions of any other characters.

So, here's what we know:

Most of the Shatterspaces are replicas of Green Hills and its inhabitants, but at least one of them is just a chunk of random empy land, which suggests that the universe has been more broken and fragmented than I had thought initially, and/or that the multiverse is larger than it seems.

Not all Green Hills inhabitants have replicas of themselves everywhere.

There's Sonic and Shadow, obviously, who don't have any replica at all so far — but we know they have been affected differently by the shatter because Sonic hit the Prism directly (which imbued his body with Prism energy) and Shadow was mid-chaos control when it broke (which locked him out in the Shetterverse void).

But for some reason I can't see yet, Eggman was also affected differently from either of them or everyone else. He was closer to the Prism than anyone (other than Sonic), I guess, but he wasn't touching it. And yet the original Green Hill Eggman is nowhere to be seen and we have five others in one single Shatterspace.

Hm.

#the grim could also be a completely destroyed green hills. absolutely nothing left not even the landmarks sonic recognises #but somehow I don't think that's the case #hmmmmm #sonic prime #sonic prime spoilers #my commentary - sort of meta?#my original post #sonic

34 notes · View notes

fieriframes · 1 year

Text

[(woman) IT'S A LANDMARK, AND ANOTHER CONTRADICTION IS PRESENTED IN THIS CASE. HERE YOU GO. WHERE THEY'RE DOING EVERYTHING]

#s04e05 brain freeze #guy fieri #guyfieri #diners drive-ins and dives #another contradiction #woman #landmark #case

3 notes · View notes

teamattorneylex · 1 year

Text

8th National Case Comment Writing Competition Organised by Team Attorneylex: Register by 25th May

View On WordPress

#125 Crpc #Bail #CBI #ED #fir #Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh #Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others AIR 2012 SC 1515 #landmark case #landmark judgement #Mohd. Ahmad Khan vs Shah Bano Begum #Mohd. Ahmad Khan vs Shah Bano Begum & Ors. (1985)#Shah Bano Begum Case

0 notes

sohamsane · 10 months

Text

Indira Devi vs. Veena Gupta: Right of Repurchase is Assignable

Case: Indira Devi (Appellant) versus Veena Gupta & Ors. (Respondents)

Court: The Supreme Court of India.

Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Civil Appeal No. 9833 of 2014

Judgement Date: July 4 2023.

Bench: Honorable Justice Abhay S. Oka & Honorable Justice Rajesh Bindal

Concepts this case deals with –

Major:

Assignability of Right of Repurchase.

Transfer of Right in Immovable Property through Gift Deed.

Conditional Sale Deed.

Minor:

Who shall perform the considerations?

Interdependent contingent considerations.

Property Involved –

Property ‘A’

Persons Involved –

Mr. Kishori Lal Sahu: Exclusive Owner of Property ‘A’.

Smt. Veena Gupta: Daughter in Law of Kishori Lal Sahu. (Respondent)

Mr. Kaleshwar Prasad Singh: Tenant on Property ‘A’.

Smt. Indira Devi: Daughter of Kaleshwar Prasad Singh. (Appellant)

Documents Involved –

Conditional Sale Deed b/w Kishori Lal Sahu & Indira Devi concerning Property ‘A’.

Gift Deed by donor Kishori Lal Sahu to donee Veena Gupta, gifting number of properties including right/interest in Property ‘A’.

Suits & Appeals –

Original Suit: Trial Court 1983 - Civil Suit was Filed in 1983 by Veena Gupta & Kishori Lal Singh (at the time not deceased) for Special Performance as well as non-payment of rent against Indira Devi. (Suit Dismissed)

First Appeal: Lower Appellate Court 2000; Veena Gupta appeals against the dismissal of the suit. (Appeal is Dismissed)

Second Appeal: High Court Patna (Bihar): Second Appeal No. 123 of 2000; Veena Gupta appeals against the dismissal by lower appellate court. (Appeal admitted and adjudged on)

Supreme Court: Civil Appeal No. 9833 of 2014; Indira Devi appeals against the order of High Court. (Appeal is dismissed)

Facts of the Case –

Kishori Lal Sahu is the owner of property ‘A’ and Kaleshwar Prasad Singh is a tenant on the said property.

On 5th August 1977 Kishori Lal Singh the Owner & His Son due to dire need of funds executed a conditional sale deed in favour of Indira Devi (Vendee) d/o Kaleshwar the tenant. The condition was that the Vendee would pay Rs. 5000 as consideration to the Vendor, and if this Rs. 5000 is not returned by the Vendor by July 1984, the Vendee will become the owner of the property, and if the money is paid back, the Vendee will have to execute a sale deed of the property in favour of the Vendor that is to return the property.

On 14th February 1983 Kishori Lal executed a registered gift deed whereby he gifted number of properties to Veena Gupta (Respondent No. 1) the Daughter in Law of Kishori Lal and Wife of Gopal Prasad. The number of properties gifted contained the property in question where it was mentioned that the said property was transferred to Indira Devi, which can be retrieved by fulfilling conditions, that is to pay Rs. 5000 by July 1984. The Gift Deed was executed in 1983.

The Vendors that is Kishori Lal was ready to pay Rs. 5000, but the Vendees didn't agree and a civil suit was filed in 1983 in a Trial Court.

Plea by Respondent (Plaintiff in that suit) in Trial Court 1983: Special Performance Decree requiring Indira Devi/Kaleshwar (Defendant there) to accept Rs. 5000 and return the property, and if there is no performance, a decree directing appellant to register the sale deed in favour of Veena Gupta (Kishori Lal 2nd Plaintiff) with possession.

Representations in the Supreme Court:

Appellants (Indira Devi):

Kishori Lal executed the conditional deed in favour of Indira. And thus the right of repurchasing the property lies with Kishori Lal as the said right is personal. Stating he had no right to assign the right to third party.

Gift Deed executed is not valid as it contains consideration to be paid for obtaining the said property.

Judgements in the following cases: Bhoju Mandal v. Debnath Bhagat, Kapilaben vs. Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth; were cited for supporting the case.

Respondents (Veena Gupta):

In the Gift Deed it is specifically mentioned that how donee may obtain the property by performing the promise of the contract/deed. 'She will have all the rights which Kishori Lal had'.

When as per the contract the vendor (Kishori Lal, non-deceased at the time of original suit of 1983 / Veena Gupta) was to give Rs. 5000 for repurchase, the vendor was willing to give but the consideration was not accepted by Indira Devi, thus to complete their part of promise Vendor deposited Rs. 5000 with Court of Original Suit with its permission.

The condition precedent for the repurchase was thus completed, and Kishori Lal assigned the right to repurchase to Veena Gupta through Gift deed.

To counter that the right of repurchase was personal, following judgements were cited for support: T.M. Balakrishna Mudaliar vs. M. Satyanarayana Rao, Shyam Singh vs Daryao Singh. It was contested that the right was assignable and not personal. And even if the Court would deal with the issue sensitively, the party assigned to was not any third party rather it was a party from the family of Kishori Lal himself.

Law & Analysis

Following are the Issues to be answered by us on the basis of facts of the case, representations made, and previous judgements:

Is the Gift deed valid?

Is the right of repurchase assignable or personal?

1. Will first begin with the validity of Gift Deed:

Gift is defined under Section 122 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as: Gift is the transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and *without consideration*, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.

Under the Transfer of Property Act Immovable Property is defined to mean anything except standing timber, growing crops or grass. Further interpretation of other definitions of other acts include Land, Things attached to earth and benefits , Benefits to arise from land. If further studied a Right if related to movable or immovable properties then a Right related to Immovable Property becomes a immovable property. Even if we consider it a movable property it can still be gifted through a gift deed.

Thus it is agreeable that in this case in the gift deed the Property 'Physical' in Question is not gifted, rather the right to repurchase to same is transferred. The consideration comes in question when dealing with the physical actual property in question. The donee didn't have to pay any consideration for the right which was transferred.

2. Is the right to repurchase personal or can be assigned?

To begin with, we must look into the contract itself that is its clauses, content and intention of the parties which may be based of the language of the contract or the circumstances preceding or at the time when the contract was executed.

- In our case on the basis of the part of the sale deed presented before the High Court the deed didn't specifically contain any clauses prohibiting the assignment of the right of repurchase.

- At first, although it is not strictly related to our case, but we must look at Section 40 of the Indian Contracts Act to ascertain whether a promise or performance is personal: 'If it appears from the nature of the case that it was the intention of the parties to any contract that any promise contained in it should be performed by the promisor himself, such promise must be performed by the promisor. In other cases, the promisor or his representatives may employ a competent person to perform it.' Thus if a promise is of a nature that only the promisor has the ability to perform or skills then it can be performed only by the promisor.

Assignability of Contractual Rights or Obligations:

Under Indian Law any type of contract can be assigned except those specifically prohibiting the same or which are of personal nature. In the case of Kapilaben v. Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth the Supreme Court observed that when entire promise or perfomance of one party towards the other are transferred to third party, then the consent of the promisee is required but when assigning just the rights or obligations to another doesn't require consent except when it is not of personal nature or if it is not specifically prohibited.

To stress on this point we will look at some of the cases cited by the counsels of the present case:

1. T.M. Balakrishna Mudaliar vs. M. Satyanarayana Rao –

The Court refered to the judgement in the case of Sakalaguna Nayadu v. Chinna Munuswami Naykar where in the Privy Council held that if the contract of repurchase did not specifically say that such benefit was only for the parties contracting, then the contract can be assigned and would be enforceable by law.

2. Shyam Singh vs Daryao Singh –

The facts of the stated case were somewhat similar to those of the present case. Lower courts opined that if there is no clause in the sale deed permitting assignment, then prohibition of the same can be read into the contract. When the matter came to Supreme Court the issue at point was considered whether such a prohibition can be read into the document by implication. The court by citing Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 held that in absence of words indicating prohibition in the contract, then such prohibition cannot be read into the terms of documents.

Section 15 (b) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 stipulates that specific performance of a contract may be obtained by the representative in interest or the principal thereto: Except if it is of personal nature.

The Court was fortified with the view stated in the above cases by the Justices.

3. Bhoju Mandal v. Debnath Bhagat –

The Court considered this case, but the case primarily was concerned with the question whether document was mortgage or sale deed with condition of repurchase.

4. Kapilaben v. Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth –

In this case issue was transfer/assignment of contract was without the consent of the promisee. The Court referred to judgement in Khardah Co. Ltd v. Raymon & Co. wherein the Court held that there was a well-recognized distinction between two classes of assignments which are assignment of rights in a contract and assignment of obligations in a contract. While the total assignment of contract that is substituting a party by a new party with consent/agreement of both original parties is called novation, where on novation there is no link between the old party and the new/amended contract, in such a case as said consent is required.

But when considering assignment of just the rights under a contract consent of the promisee is not strictly required that is the rights are freely assignable unless the contract prohibits it.

The Court in the present case also referred to a commentary on The Indian Contract Act & Special Relief Act by authors Pollock and Mulla, wherein the authors opine that the benefits of contract can be assigned where it makes no difference to the person on whom the obligation lies to which of two person (original or asignee) he is to discharge it. That is where the identity of the party on which the obligation is to be discharged makes no difference to the promisee (one who has obligations), provided the original promisor has effected such assignment willingly, then such contract is prima facie assignable, except in case of personal consideration. Of course payment of money does not involve personal consideration/skills.

Thus, the Court in this present case held that the right was not personal rather freely assignable in absence of bar in contract.

Conclusion:

We can conclude simply that:

1. Non-assignability cannot be implied into contract if it doesn't specifically mention it.

2. Rights under a contract when not of a personal nature can be assigned freely without consent, except barred.

3. Gift of a interest in immovable property irrespective of consideration involved in further exercise of the right is valid as there is no apparent consideration for the right itself.

Thankyou for reading! Connect with me on LinkedIn Soham Sane.

#supreme court #case comment #Indian Contracts Act #Right to Repurchase Property #Transfer of Property Act #Landmark Judgement

1 note · View note

stumpyjoepete · 2 years

Text

Piece of the Berlin wall in the (Korean Buddhist) Unification Temple:

They also have a memorial for the victims of the Jeju massacre.

#history #the chо̄sen people #big in japan #completely unrelated to the moonies in case you were wondering #it's just a zainichi landmark in osaka

5 notes · View notes

chekovsphaser · 2 years

Text

I have a fair amount of beef with my father but also if my mother says "ugh you're just like your father" one more time I WILL scream.

#she means ugh youre autistic #also sorry ur not interested in the landmark legal cases of this imaginary town i made up doesnt mean u have to rain on my parade

2 notes · View notes

techminsolutions · 3 months

Text

Decoding Section 147: Mangalam Publications Verdict and the Essence of Tax Disclosures

In the intricate legal battle between M/S Mangalam Publications and the Commissioner of Income Tax, Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, takes centre stage. The case, marked as Civil Appeal Nos. 8580–8582 of 2011, reached its zenith on January 23, 2024, with Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivering landmark verdicts. Mangalam Publications Verdict and…

View On WordPress

#appellate tribunal #disclosure obligations #financial assessments #future legal interpretations #Income Tax Act #Kerala High Court #landmark ruling #legal case #Legal Verdict #Mangalam Publications #Section 147 #tax implications #tax law #Techmin Consulting

0 notes

Last Seen Blogs

dixbolik-lovers

Requests: Closed.

kairiscorner

kairi

plumbbobtoggle

fdt45

Fdt45

shetumbler

Sarah's Hand Embroidery