Property, landed: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Benami Properties */

2024-11-07T18:51:36Z

‎Benami Properties

Jyoti at 18:39, 7 November 2024

2024-11-07T18:39:06Z

Jyoti: /* Benami Properties */

2024-11-07T18:29:55Z

‎Benami Properties

Pdewan: /* Sale: Rights and liabilities */

2024-10-19T08:29:48Z

‎Sale: Rights and liabilities

Jyoti: /* Benami Properties */

2021-10-12T06:48:49Z

‎Benami Properties

Jyoti: /* Enemy Properties */

2021-09-26T14:58:59Z

‎Enemy Properties

Jyoti: /* Illegal occupation */

2021-09-26T14:55:31Z

‎Illegal occupation

Shivam at 11:47, 15 February 2019

2019-02-15T11:47:35Z

Shivam at 11:45, 15 February 2019

2019-02-15T11:45:51Z

Shivam at 11:44, 15 February 2019

2019-02-15T11:44:59Z

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 =Benami Properties=
 ==‘Property in wife’s name, when valid funds used’==
 [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F08%2F11&entity=Ar00905&sk=5C18C601&mode=text  Abhinav Garg, ‘Property in wife’s name not benami if valid funds used’, August 11, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 31: / Line 47: @@
 HC said it was to be proved during trial if the property was purchased through known or unknown sources of income and it couldn’t be automatically dubbed benami if the husband bought it in his wife’s name
-==The legal position==
+[[Category:India|PPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIAPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIAPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA
-===SC retracts its 2022 verdict quashing parts of benami property law===
+PROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA]]
-[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=19_10_2024_006_022_cap_TOI Dhananjay Mahapatra, Oct 19, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|PPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIAPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIAPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA
-[[File: SC retracts its 2022 verdict quashing parts of benami property law.jpg|A timeline: SC retracts its 2022 verdict quashing parts of benami property law <br/> From: [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=19_10_2024_001_013_cap_TOI  Oct 19, 2024: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]
+PROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA]]
+[[Category:Pages with broken file links|PROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA
-New Delhi : Supreme Court reversed its 2022 decision to strike down two sections of the benami properties Act after the Centre argued that the court had pronounced its verdict even though no one had challenged the provisions.
+PROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA]]
-−
- “It is undisputed that there was no challenge to the constitutionality of the unamended provisions of the Act. It is trite law that a challenge to the constitutional validity of a provision of a law cannot be adjudicated without pleadings,” SC bench stated.
-−
-Supreme Court also allowed govt to file review petitions against HC orders which have been passed on confiscation proceedings following the 2022 judgment.
-−
- Solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the law was to curb the activities of shell companies and facilitate attachment of properties held benami (in another entity’s name). He buttressed his argument on the error committed by SC by showing that the judgment itself had recorded that the only question to be adjudicated was whether the 2016 amendments to the 1988 Act were to operate prospectively or retrospectively.
- SC in its 2022 judgment had declared Section 3, which provides for punishment of persons indulging in benami transactions, and Section 5, which provides for confiscation of benami properties, as unconstitutional. Consequently, it also quashed the penal and confiscation proceedings initiated against offenders and benami properties.
-−
- The Centre said, “By striking down Sections 3 and 5 of the unamended 1988 Act, without those provisions having been challenged, and without hearing the parties regarding the vires of those provisions, SC has overturned and upset four decades of jurisprudence developed by SC, wherein it has decided rights between parties in property disputes inter-se, as well presuming the entering into benami transactions to be an offence under the 1988Act.”
-−
 =The legal position=

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 |}
-[[Category: India |P]]
-[[Category: Law,Constitution,Judiciary |P]]
 =Benami Properties=
@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 HC said it was to be proved during trial if the property was purchased through known or unknown sources of income and it couldn’t be automatically dubbed benami if the husband bought it in his wife’s name
 =The legal position=
@@ Line 130: / Line 147: @@
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|PPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA
 PROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:29, 7 November 2024
Line 31:		Line 31:
	HC said it was to be proved during trial if the property was purchased through known or unknown sources of income and it couldn’t be automatically dubbed benami if the husband bought it in his wife’s name		HC said it was to be proved during trial if the property was purchased through known or unknown sources of income and it couldn’t be automatically dubbed benami if the husband bought it in his wife’s name

		+	=The legal position=
		+	===SC retracts its 2022 verdict quashing parts of benami property law==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=19_10_2024_006_022_cap_TOI Dhananjay Mahapatra, Oct 19, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
		+	[[File: SC retracts its 2022 verdict quashing parts of benami property law.jpg\|A timeline: SC retracts its 2022 verdict quashing parts of benami property law <br/> From: [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=19_10_2024_001_013_cap_TOI Oct 19, 2024: ''The Times of India'']\|frame\|500px]]
		+
		+	New Delhi : Supreme Court reversed its 2022 decision to strike down two sections of the benami properties Act after the Centre argued that the court had pronounced its verdict even though no one had challenged the provisions.
		+
		+	“It is undisputed that there was no challenge to the constitutionality of the unamended provisions of the Act. It is trite law that a challenge to the constitutional validity of a provision of a law cannot be adjudicated without pleadings,” SC bench stated.
		+
		+	Supreme Court also allowed govt to file review petitions against HC orders which have been passed on confiscation proceedings following the 2022 judgment.
		+
		+	Solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the law was to curb the activities of shell companies and facilitate attachment of properties held benami (in another entity’s name). He buttressed his argument on the error committed by SC by showing that the judgment itself had recorded that the only question to be adjudicated was whether the 2016 amendments to the 1988 Act were to operate prospectively or retrospectively.
		+
		+	SC in its 2022 judgment had declared Section 3, which provides for punishment of persons indulging in benami transactions, and Section 5, which provides for confiscation of benami properties, as unconstitutional. Consequently, it also quashed the penal and confiscation proceedings initiated against offenders and benami properties.
		+
		+	The Centre said, “By striking down Sections 3 and 5 of the unamended 1988 Act, without those provisions having been challenged, and without hearing the parties regarding the vires of those provisions, SC has overturned and upset four decades of jurisprudence developed by SC, wherein it has decided rights between parties in property disputes inter-se, as well presuming the entering into benami transactions to be an offence under the 1988Act.”
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|PPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIAPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA
		+	PROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|PPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIAPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA
		+	PROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA]]

	= Caretaker, occupation by=		= Caretaker, occupation by=

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:29, 19 October 2024
Line 100:		Line 100:

	He is also entitled to interest on the amount from the date on which possession has been delivered to the buyer.		He is also entitled to interest on the amount from the date on which possession has been delivered to the buyer.
		+	=See also=
		+	[[ Benami Transactions]]
		+
		+	[[Property, landed: India]]
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|PPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA
		+	PROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|PPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA
		+	PROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:48, 12 October 2021
Line 32:		Line 32:


		+	= Caretaker, occupation by=
		+	== Caretaker has no claim on a property: SC==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2021/09/25&entity=Ar00312&sk=04A3B601&mode=text Sep 25, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	A caretaker or servant can never “acquire interest” in a property irrespective of his long possession, the Supreme Court has ruled, adding that he or she has to vacate the premises on the owner’s demand.
		+
		+	The verdict has come in a case in which the apex court has set aside the order of a trial court and high court refusing to allow the plea of an owner for not proceeding on a suit filed by a caretaker seeking he shouldn’t be vacated from the premises. “The trial court has committed a manifest error,” a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Ajay Rastogi said.

	[[Category:India\|PPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA		[[Category:India\|PPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:58, 26 September 2021
Line 30:		Line 30:

	HC said it was to be proved during trial if the property was purchased through known or unknown sources of income and it couldn’t be automatically dubbed benami if the husband bought it in his wife’s name		HC said it was to be proved during trial if the property was purchased through known or unknown sources of income and it couldn’t be automatically dubbed benami if the husband bought it in his wife’s name
−
−	~~= Enemy Properties =~~
−	~~[https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/up-front/story/20180205-pravin-togadia-pm-modi-fallout-vhp-rss-bjp-1154792-2018-01-25 Uday Mahurkar , Spoils of war “India Today” 5/2/2018]~~
−
−	~~''' See graphic '''~~
−
−	~~[[File: Up for auction .jpg\| Up for auction [https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/up-front/story/20180205-pravin-togadia-pm-modi-fallout-vhp-rss-bjp-1154792-2018-01-25“ India Today ]\|frame\|500px]]~~
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−



		+	[[Category:India\|PPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA
		+	PROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|PPROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA
		+	PROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA]]

	=Illegal occupation=		=Illegal occupation=

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:55, 26 September 2021
Line 84:		Line 84:

	The court gave ownership rights to the woman who had inherited the land from her father.		The court gave ownership rights to the woman who had inherited the land from her father.
		+
		+	=Ownership rights=
		+	==Mutation doesn’t confer property title right: SC==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2021/09/10&entity=Ar00301&sk=8591AB1E&mode=text Sep 10, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	The Supreme Court has reiterated that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes the title to a property, which can only be decided by a competent civil court. The court said an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record of rights.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|P
		+	PROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|P
		+	PROPERTY, LANDED: INDIA]]

	=Sale: Rights and liabilities=		=Sale: Rights and liabilities=

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:47, 15 February 2019
Line 39:		Line 39:


		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 ''' See graphic '''
-[[File: Up for auction .jpg| Up for auction [https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/up-front/story/20180205-pravin-togadia-pm-modi-fallout-vhp-rss-bjp-1154792-2018-01-25“ India Today ]
+[[File: Up for auction .jpg| Up for auction [https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/up-front/story/20180205-pravin-togadia-pm-modi-fallout-vhp-rss-bjp-1154792-2018-01-25“ India Today ]|frame|500px]]
 |frame|500px]]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 HC said it was to be proved during trial if the property was purchased through known or unknown sources of income and it couldn’t be automatically dubbed benami if the husband bought it in his wife’s name
-= Enemy Property =
+= Enemy Properties =
 [https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/up-front/story/20180205-pravin-togadia-pm-modi-fallout-vhp-rss-bjp-1154792-2018-01-25 Uday Mahurkar  , Spoils of war “India Today” 5/2/2018]
@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 [[File: Up for auction .jpg| Up for auction [https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/up-front/story/20180205-pravin-togadia-pm-modi-fallout-vhp-rss-bjp-1154792-2018-01-25“ India Today ]
 |frame|500px]]
 =Illegal occupation=