Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreBCAJ Brieficles are short-format, web-only articles on contemporary topics of professional importance that are open-for-all to read & share.
Explore BrieficlesExplore past issues of BCA Journal & indulge in a treasure trove of high-quality professional content across format of print, videos & learning events from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreMonthly mouth-piece of BCAS, the BCA Journal is a leading publication that has been in continuous circulation for more than 55 years. Over the years the BCAJ has become synonymous with high-quality & authentic content across fields of finance, accounting, tax & regulatory matters. The BCAJ has wide circulation across India & commands huge respect amongst the Chartered Accountants` community.
Learn MoreFor queries, collaborations, and insights to forge, Drop a line, share thoughts, inquiries galore, At BCAJ, your messages, we eagerly explore.
Learn More11. The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution vs. B. Gunashekar and Anr.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2022 / 2025 INSC 490 16th April, 2025
Suit for Injunction – To restrain the owner from disposing of the property – Agreement to sell – Does not confer right, title, or interest in the property – Suit without cause of action – Suit dismissed.
Directions were also issued to registration authorities to report any cash transactions in the purchase of properties which was in upwards of ₹2,00,000/-. [Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d), Code for Civil Procedure, 1908; S. 269ST, Income-tax Act, 1961].
FACTS
The Respondents (original Plaintiff) had filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Appellant (Original Defendant) from creating any third-party interest over the suit property. The Appellant is an educational institution, established in 1873. Thereafter, in 1929, the Appellant purchased the suit property and has been in continuous possession since. The Respondents had alleged that they had entered into an agreement to sell with one third party (vendor) for the purchase of the suit property. Further,