Family Settlement Agreement India

2:06 pm Uncategorized

All the terms of the proposed agreement for the family establishment have been fully explained to all parties to this agreement for the family establishment, and these signatories have, in consultation, reviewed and fully considered the above conditions and have given their free consent, in accordance with their will, without any violence, coercion and/or inducement. Members who can participate in the family agreement must submit a proposal. Property right or interest “It is that if one of the parties to the transaction does not have a title, but the other party renounces all rights or titles in favour of such a person and recognizes it as the sole owner, then the pre-economy title must be accepted and the family agreement will be upheld, and the courts will have no difficulty in giving to the same person. Finally, I would like to say that consensual, good-faith and binding family comparisons are better at resolving disputes and benefiting all Members by avoiding the chaotic legal battles that were taking place publicly. So it`s certainly a more harmonious way to resolve disputes. However, sometimes not all family members reach a consensus on an agreement on their share in the property. In these circumstances, the remedy is the only way out. End Notes [1] Reliance Natural Resources Ltd v Reliance Industries Ltd., (2010) 7 p.C.C. 1 (India). [2] Rajesh Chandra Sood v Umesh Chandra Sood, I.L.R., (2002) 1 del. 357 (India). [3] S.K.

Sattar S.K. Mohd. v. GundappaAmbadas (1996) 6 p.C.C. 373 (India). [4] ( Last access on January 19, 2016). [5] Roshan Singh v Zile Singh A.I.R. 1988 p.C. 881 (India). [6] HiranBibi v. SohanBipiKhunniLal, A.I.R.

1914 P.C. 44 (India). [7] LalaKhunniAl v. KunwarGobind Krishna Narain and Anr. I.L.R. (1911) 33 All.356 (P.C.) (India). [8] (1973) 2 CSC 312 (India). [9] SahuMadho Das v. PanditMukand Ram, 1955 (2) S.C.R. 22 (India).

[10] Id. [11](1834) 3 Bj. K. 76. [12] (1866) LR 29. [13] Ram Charan Das vs. Gitrjanandini Devi [1965] 3 S.C.R. 841 (India).

[14] Supra-note 6. [15] 1971: 1 p.C.C 837 (India). [16] Supra-note 6. [17] Kale vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 p.C.C. 119 (India).. [18] Hansa Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Kidarsons Industries Pvt. Ltd., 1998 45 D.R.J. 149 (India).

[19] A.I.R. 1966 p.C. 1836 (India). [20] Supra Note 18. [21] Manish Mohan Sharma v. Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd., A.I.R. (2008) S.C. 1682 (India). [22] Hari Shankar Singhania v.

Gaur HariSinghania A,I,R. 2006 P.C 2488 (India). [23] Mahip Singh Thakur v. Mrs. Hema Thakur, ShriVikram, 120 (2005) D.L.T. 173 (India). [24] Supra note 18. [25] AmarjeetLalSuri v.MotiSagarSuri, (2005) 119 D.L.T. 295 (India).

[26] 17, third edition, page 215-216. [27] A.I.R. 1966 p.C. 1836 (India). [28] Supra-Note 11. [29] TekBahadurBhujil v. Debi Singh Bhujil, A.I.R. 1966 p.C. 292 (India).

[30] AIR 1937 All. (India). [31] Chandreshwar Singh v. Ramchandra Singh, A.I.R. 1973 Pat.215 (India). [32] A.I.R. 1928 All.641 (India). [33] SitalaBaksh Singh v. langBahadur Singh, A.I.R. 1933 Oudh 347 (India).

[34] Audesh Singh V. SirtajiKuar, A.I.R. 1937 Oudh 347 (India). [35] Bachhtawar v. Sunder Lal I.L.R. 48 All 213 (India). [36] C.I.T. v. R.NagarajaRao, ITA No. 3038 of 2005 (India). [37]www.kpmg.com/in/en/services/Tax/FlashNews/Nagaraja-Rao.pdf ( [38]265 I.T.R.

346, Bom. (India) [39]266I. Mad T.R.342. (India). [40] A.I.R. 1955 p.C. 481 (India). . [41]1981 127 I.T.R.

655 (Mad.) (India). [42]159 C.T.R. (Mad.) 255 (India).

Comments are closed.