Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing C. Albert Morris vs K. Chandrasekaran & Ors on 26 October, 2005

Krishnan vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation on 22 February, 2022

29. We hold that since the arbitration agreement is an independent agreement between the parties, and is not chargeable to payment of stamp duty, the non-payment of stamp duty on the commercial contract, would not invalidate the arbitration clause, or render it unenforceable, since it has an independent existence of its own. The view taken by the Court on the issue of separability of the arbitration clause on the registration of the substantive contract, ought to have been followed even with respect to the Stamp Act. The non- payment of stamp duty on the substantive contract would not invalidate even the main contract. It is a deficiency which is curable on the payment of the requisite stamp duty." The legal position being thus settled, the contention that the arbitration clause was rendered inoperative on expiry of the period of lease agreement, is liable to be rejected. Therefore, this Court need not venture into the question whether the status of the respondents are that of 'tenants at sufferance' or OP(C).1500/15 15 'tenants holding over', in spite of the distinction having been demonstrated with the distinction between the terms with the aid of the decision in C Albert Morris v. K Chandrasekharan and Others [(2006) 1 SCC 228]. For the same reason, the Division Bench decision of this Court in Chandroth Vennalakath Ibrahim and Others v. M/s.'Twinkle' [2019 (1) ILR (Ker) 382], holding that the self working clause in an agreement providing extension for a term exceeding one year would become redundant in the absence of execution of a fresh registered lease deed, cannot be pressed into service.
Kerala High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Kunji Mohammed on 6 April, 2022

Though the counsel for HPCL tried to distinguish C.Albert Morris's case contending that the licensing authority need not go into the question of title, right and interest and it is for the civil court to decide, I cannot accept this argument for the simple reason that the licensing authority has to be satisfied with subsisting right of the holder of licence. In the absence of any lease or court order, the licensing authority has to decide the matter with available records. The licensing authority cannot postpone its decision merely citing the pendency of dispute before this Court or before any other court. The licensing authority cannot shirk its responsibility under statutory provisions. In such circumstances, I am of the view that by placing reliance on Rule 148(5), the licensing authority is attempting to evade from answering the real issue referable under Rule 152. Therefore, I hold that HPCL cannot claim the benefit of deemed licence. I declare so. Consequently, a direction is issued to the licensing authority, the second respondent in W.P. (C).No.20574/2020, to take a decision on renewal application after adverting to the law as above and hearing HPCL and N.Krishnan or his authorised representative. Till such a decision is taken, HPCL will have the benefit of Rule 148(5) of the Petroleum Rules."
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Leju Saji Kumar vs The Konni Grama Panchayath on 30 June, 2021

6. When the case was taken up today, the Counsel on either side submitted that cases involving similar facts were considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)No.10213 of 2020 and connected cases and by judgment dated 22.12.2020, this Court had directed the Municipality which was the concerned Local Self- Government in those cases, to consider the application for renewal of license, subject to certain conditions. It is seen from the judgment that this Court had directed the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives who is the Licensing Authority under the Petroleum Rules, to consider the application for renewal of license submitted by HPCL after adverting to the objection of the lesser, referable to Rule 152 of the Petroleum Rules and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.Albert Morris vs. K.Chandrasekharan and others reported in [(2006) 1 SCC 228]. The decision that is to be taken by the WP(C) NO. 14439 OF 2020 & WP(C) NO. 18058 OF 2020 10 Municipality on the application for renewal of the license was made subject to the outcome of the decision taken by the licensing authority, on the application for renewal of license submitted by HPCL. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge in the above said decision and the consequential directions issued.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - T R Ravi - Full Document

Suresh Babu P vs The Union Of India on 29 January, 2026

In Albert Morris's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the renewal of lease by a tenant holding over and it was held that the District Collector cannot venture into legal aspects coming within the domain of Civil Courts. Ext.P1(a) would reveal that the total amount to be invested for the establishment and operation of the Retail Outlet is Rs.51 lakhs. Since the Respondent No.6 is a Co-operative Society, a previous sanction from the Registrar is essential under Rule 54 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. Even though Clause (b) of the First Proviso to Rule 54(1) provides that no such sanction is required if the proposed investment is included in the Bye-laws, Ext.R4(a) Bye-laws itself contain a specific clause that such investment can only be made W.P (C) No.15700/2025 9 2026:KER:6989 with the approval of the Registrar. Ext.R6(a) is not a Sanction issued by the Registrar in accordance with Clause 3.(14)(1) of the Ext.R4(a) Bye-Laws. Ext.R4(a) is only an approval of the Amendments to the Bye-Laws dated 27.03.2023. Ext.R6(a) Sanction is issued by the Joint Registrar only on 09.10.2025, which is obtained after the filing of the Writ Petition on 09.04.2025. As on the date of submission of the Application, Ext.R6(a) Sanction was not there. When Respondent No.6 did not have the necessary previous Sanction from the Registrar for investing the fund in a Petroleum Retail Outlet, Respondent No.3 should not have sanctioned Ext.P11 NOC on 12.03.2025. Rule 144(7)(1)(b) of the Petroleum Rules mandates obtaining comments from the Police Department regarding the density and impact on traffic. Ext.P8 Report of the Police Department does not state anything about the traffic density or impact on the traffic and it is only a Police clearance as to the non-involvement W.P (C) No.15700/2025 10 2026:KER:6989 of the Respondent No.6 in any crime. Rule 144(7)(1)(c) of the Petroleum Rules mandates obtaining comments from the Grama Panchayat. Ext.P12(b) File Notes of the Grama Panchayat would reveal that the Secretary of the Respondent No.7 Panchayat endorsed No Objection for granting Ext.P11 NOC without verifying as to whether the location of the fuel filling station was in accordance with Petroleum Rules. Rule 47 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, stipulates that the location and construction of fuel tank and vent-pipe shall be governed by the provisions of the Petroleum Rules. Rule 144(7)(1)(d) of the Petroleum Rules mandates obtaining comments from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) or Public Works Department (PWD) or any other authority regarding road safety, road alignment and road access conformity. Ext.P9 issued by the Motor Vehicle Inspector does not satisfy Rule 144(7)(1)(d). The said Report is silent regarding W.P (C) No.15700/2025 11 2026:KER:6989 road alignment and road access conformity. Ext.P11 Order is not appealable under Rule 154 of the Petroleum Rules, and hence the Writ Petition is perfectly maintainable. The learned Counsel concluded his arguments by praying to set aside Ext.P11 NOC and to declare that the Respondent No.4 is incompetent to submit an Application for NOC and the applied site is not suitable for establishing a Petroleum Retail Outlet.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1