Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Come to court with clean hands - disclosures in a case
This Court and different High Courts have repeatedly invoked and applied the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be heard on the merits of his grievance - State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. MANU/SC/0022/1976 : (1977) 2 SCC 431, Vijay Kumar Kathuria v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0054/1983 : (1983) 3 SCC 333, Welcome Hotel and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc.MANU/SC/0029/1983 : (1983) 4 SCC 575, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (dead) by LRs. and Anr. v. Government of Karnataka and Anr. MANU/SC/0386/1991 : (1991) 3 SCC 261,S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs. and Ors.MANU/SC/0192/1994 : (1994) 1 SCC 1, Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane and Ors. MANU/SC/1150/1996 : (1996) 4 SCC 297, Union of India and Ors. v. Muneesh Suneja (2001) 3 SCC 92, Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India MANU/SC/3355/2007 : (2007) 8 SCC 449, Sunil Poddar and Ors. v. Union Bank of India MANU/SC/0322/2008 : (2008) 2 SCC 326, K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. MANU/SC/3371/2008 : (2008) 12 SCC 481, G. Jayshree and Ors. v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Ors. MANU/SC/8451/2008 : (2009) 3 SCC 141 and C.A. No. 5239/2002 - Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., decided on 3.12.2009.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
New Argument on Fact is not permitted in Appeal
This new argument therefore on a question of fact cannot be permitted to be taken more so in the absence of any evidence having been brought on record in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, MANU/SC/0047/1988 : AIR 1988 SC 2181
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
When foundation goes edifice falls
Chairman Cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited v. Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142
Sublato fundamento cadit opus
Sent from phone
ITC - Entry Tax matter
ITC Limited v. State of UP, 2012 1 ADJ 607
Upheld the validity of entry tax act 2007
Sent from phone
Non execution of sale deed despite allotment
Ganesh Prasad v. LDA Lucknow, 2012 (1) ADJ. 247 (DB) (LB)
Sent from phone
Residential - commercial, town plan cannot be altered, no banking activity in residential area
2012 2 SCC 232
RK Mittal v. State of UP
RK Mittal v. State of UP
Master plan has force of law, it has to be amended by statutory procedure and not be exec order.
Sent from phone
Termination of Lease: 106 of TP Act
Case 1 (Supreme Court - 2009) : (2009)15SCC693
para 19: A simple tenancy can be terminated by service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Once a valid notice is served, the tenant becomes trespasser.
Case 2 ( Allahabad HC - single judge) : 2010 1 AWC742
para 9. It is further found from the finding recorded by both the authorities that a finding of fact has been recorded regarding service of notice. The contents of notice may not be very happily worded but the gist and meaning of the notice are very clear which terminates the tenancy of the petitioner immediately on the date of receipt of notice and to vacate the premises within 30 days. In my opinion this is the only requirement in law for giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice cannot be sought to be invalid unless and until it is proved by the person concerned that there is no mention in the notice that he is in arrears for more than 3 months or there is no whisper in the notice regarding termination of the tenancy immediately after the expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. A clear finding has been recorded by the Judge, Small Causes Court as well as by the revisional authority. In the notice, it has clearly been mentioned that within a period of 30 days, he has to vacate the premises.
Case 3 (Sup Ct - 7 judges) AIR1979SC1745,
para 7. It is this clause which brings into operation the requirement of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Without adverting to the effect and the details of waiver of forfeiture, waiver of notice to quit, relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent etc. as provided for in Sections 112 to 114A of the Transfer of Property Act, suffice it to say that under the said Act no ground of eviction of a tenant has to be made out once a contractual tenancy is put to an end by service of a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Until and unless the lease is determined, the lessee is entitled to continue in possession. Once it is determined it becomes open to the lessor to enforce his right of recovery of possession of the property against him.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Holding over - Lease
2010 28 LCD 1790
Giriraj Prasad v. Shyam Sundar Agarwal
No notice of termination necessary for fixed term tenancy
Sent from phone
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)