Shantabai vs state of bombay
Webb16 sep. 2016 · But if the intention is to oust them down sooner or later for the purpose of utilizing the wood for building or other industrial purposes, they would be timber and accordingly be regarded as movable property (Shantabai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 532) determining whether the tree is movable or immovable, the intention of the party is ...
Shantabai vs state of bombay
Did you know?
Webb7 maj 2024 · Shantabai vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 532 In this case, the court held that real intention will be considered, as to for what purpose was the tree planted. Entering into the land and cutting trees will fall under the category of benefits arising out of the land. Kapoor construction vs. Leela Nagaraj & Ors. AIR 2005 Webb22 mars 2024 · The transfer under the TPA, 1882 deals with specific transfer pertaining to immoveable and moveable property. However, it is said that anything which excludes immoveable property is regarded as moveable property. Section 3 (2) of the Act states:-. “Immoveable property does not include standing timber, growing crops or grass’.
WebbBOMBAY HIGH COURT DHARMADHIKARI AND PURANIK, JJ. ... 387 : 1980 Mah LJ 833 (Bom) - Referred By (1980) Criminal Appeals Nos. 126, to 128 of 1979, D/-5-12-1980 (Bom), Ziblabai v. State of Maharashtra - Referred By AIR 1979 Bom 282 - Referred By (1979) 20 Guj LR 154 : 1979 Cri LR ... Shantabai and another VS State of Maharashtra - 24 Aug 81. … WebbCourt looked at definition under GCA and TOPA As fish do not come under that category the definition in the General Clauses Act applies and as a profit a prendre is regarded as a benefit arising out of land it follows that it is immoveable property within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act. tangible immoveable property – not in writing, no …
Webb1. Sukry Kurdepa v.Goondakull: A. Whether trees can be regarded as movable or immovable depends upon the circumstances of the case. 2. Shantabai v. State of Bombay: B. A sale of trees where they were cut and taken away was not that of immovable property. 3. Fatimabibi v. Arrfana Begum: C. WebbMumbai University offers BA courses at a fee ranging from INR 10,000-50,000. Admission to the program is open to all those who pass the eligibility criteria of the courses. The University offers placement opportunities to the students. The average starting annual salary ranges from INR 3,00,000-8,00,000. University Name.
WebbShantabai v. State of Bombay – AIR 1958 SC 532. This case was a landmark case that laid down the test to determine when timber trees are standing timber and when they are …
WebbIn Rati Lal v/s State of Bombay, it was held that judiciary is not State for the purpose of Article12. In A.R.Antulay v/s R.S.Nayak and N.S.Mirajkar v/s State of Maharashtra , it has been observed that when rule making power of judiciary is concerned it is State but when exercise of judicial power is concerned it is not State. Conclusion floor joist heating systemsWebbThe State of Orissa and another [1955] 2 SCR 919 and Smt. Shantabai v. State of Bombay & Orissa [1959] SCR 265 275-6 referred to; and Board of Revenue Etc. v. A.M. Ansari Etc.[1976] 3 SCR 661 held 1 inapplicable. 12. (a) The case of … floor joist load chartWebbState of Orissa (1955) 2 SCR 919 6. Shantabai v State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 532 7. Suresh Chand v. Kundan (2001) 10 SCC 221 8. Duncan Industries Ltd. v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2000) SCC 633 9. Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited v. Comm. of Central Excise (2000) 7 SCC 29. Specific Relief Act – S. 5 and S. 6. Commissioner Of … floor joist insulation codeWebbThe distinction between a tree and standing timber has been pointed out by Vivian Bose, J., in his separate but concurring judgment in the case of Smt Shantabai v. State of Bombay 1 as follows: “ Now, what is the difference between standing timber and a tree? great outdoors richardson txWebb18 apr. 2024 · Shrimati Shantabai vs State Of Bombay & Others 1958 Supreme Court of India This case is based on the definition of immovable property given in the act. It was made clear that the trees are immovable property and come under things attached to the earth and also in case of lease one can enjoy property but has no rights to take it away. great outdoors pup campWebbSadanta Infotech Private Limited is a Private Company limited by Shares. It is classified as Non-govt company and is registered at RoC-Mumbai. There are 2 promoter(s) of the company viz. Shantabai Sadashiv Sagar, Datta Rangnath Chavan. floor joist insulation 2x10Webb28 juni 2024 · State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, (1965) 1 SCR 123 By: lexpeeps On: June 28, 2024 The case analysis is written by Nimisha Mishra, a second-year student of NALSAR University of Law. In this case comment, the author has briefly explained the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George. I NTRODUCTION floor joist mold treatment