Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.08 seconds)
Documents citing Venkatesh Thimmaiah Gurjalkar vs S.S. Hawaldar on 15 October, 1997

S.V. Venkataramanappa (Deceased) By ... vs Ravindra K. Naidu Alias R.K. Naidu on 11 June, 1998

2. During the pendency of the said petition, the tenant died. His wife and four sons (the petitioners herein) were brought on record, as his legal representatives, Thereafter, the said L.Rs of the tenant made an application under Section 151 of the CPC for dismissal of the petition contending that the eviction petition is not maintainable after the death of tenant of a non-residential premises, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Venkatesh Thimmaiah Gurjalkar v S.S. Hawaldar . The Trial Court rejected the application by order dated 23-3-1998, reserving liberty to the L.Rs to urge the question of maintainability along with the merits of the matter. Feeling aggrieved, the L.Ps of the deceased tenant have filed this revision petition.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Gantusa H. Baddi (Dead) By Lrs vs Meerabai G. Pai & Ors on 24 April, 2000

On grant of special leave by this Court, this appeal was placed before a Bench of two learned Judges, wherein a contention was advanced that the decision of this Court in Venkatesh Thimmaiahs case, on which the High Court has relied upon, is contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Vishnu Narayan Gadskari (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Paralal Baladev Uza and Ors., 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 428, and in both the cases, the question for consideration was whether under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, the tenancy in respect of a non-residential premises can be held to be heritable or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Ismail And Ors. vs Sushila Bai And Ors. on 19 September, 2002

4. Mr. Balakrishna Shastry, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-tenants has contended that subsequently to the decision of the Apex Court in Venkatesh Thimmaiah Gurjalkar's case, supra, a larger Bench of the Apex Court as in Gantusa H. Baddi (dead) by L.Rs v. Meerabai G. Pai and Ors., has over-ruled the earlier decision in Venkatesh Thimmaiah Gurjalkar's case, supra and therefore, the order of the First Revisional Court is unsustainable in law. Alternatively, it is also his contention that by virtue of Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 34 of 2001') the entire proceedings would abate as the premises in question is a non-residential premises measuring more than 14 sq. metres as provided under Clause (g) of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act 1999.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - A V Reddy - Full Document

Modin Kutty (Deceased) By L.Rs And ... vs Mrs. Hazel Fernandes And Others on 30 June, 2000

4. The learned Counsel tor the respondent 1, however, supported the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge on the ground that at that point of time of passing the impugned order the law that was holding the field was otherwise. The learned Counsel however fairly conceded that, that law came to be settled by the judgment of the three Judges Larger Bench of the Supreme Court to set at rest the conflicting judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Venkatesh Thimmaiah, supra and in the case of Vishnu Narayan Gadskari, supra.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Chandramma And Another vs Smt. Varamahalakshamma And Others on 5 June, 2000

In the above case, it has been held that the decision in Venkatesh Thimmaiah Gurjalkar v S.S. Hawaldar, has not been correctly decided. Having regard to the decision referred to above, it is clear that the order of the District Judge dismissing the revision as not maintainable has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the District Judge to decide the matter on merits.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S R Murthy - Full Document
1