Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Tayebhai Mohammedbhai Bagasarwalla ... on 3 July, 1996

Shivram Ladu Nitardekar vs Alex Fernandes And Ors. on 2 September, 2005

7. On the other hand, Mr. C.A. Coutinho has submitted that in the case of Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. v. Tayebhai Mohammedbhai Bagasarwalla (supra) as well as in T. Lakshmipathi and Ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and Ors. (supra) the landlords had reconstructed the premises and they were available to be let out to the tenants and, therefore, the said cases are clearly distinguishable. Mr. Coutinho has further submitted that in the case at hand, the tenanted premises have ceased to exist due to natural causes and the plaintiff himself is out of possession of the land on which the said premises existed and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover either the premises or the land on which they stood.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Shaha Ratansi Khimji & Sons vs Proposed Kumbhar Sons Hotel P.Ltd. on 10 July, 2014

If the argument of the appellant’s counsel is accepted then it would mean that although the tenant on the destruction of the shop cannot put up a new structure on the old site still he would continue to squat on the vacant land. Under such situation it is difficult to hold that the tenancy is not extinguished on the total destruction of the premises governed by the State Rent Act. Under English law, in a contractual tenancy in respect of building and 16 land the liability to pay the rent by the tenant to the landlord continues even on the destruction of the building whereas there is no liability of the tenant to pay rent to the landlord on the destruction of the premises governed by the State Rent Act. Therefore, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd.(supra) does not lay down the correct view of law. This Court a number of times has held that any special leave petition dismissed by this Court without giving a reason has no binding force on its subsequent decisions. Therefore, the two aforesaid cases relied on by counsel for the appellant are of no assistance to the argument advanced by him.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next