Rattan Lal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 31 May, 2002
10. Reliance has also been placed by Mr. Rohtagi upon a judgment in East India Hotels Limited v. Syndicate Bank (supra). The facts in this case were that:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 70 (0.50 seconds)Documents citing
East India Hotels Ltd. vs Syndicate Bank on 12 September, 1991
Mumbai International Airport vs Indamer Company Pvt. Ltd on 2 July, 2008
After referring to various judgments, the Supreme Court expressly
approved the judgment of K. Ramaswamy, J. in East India Hotels
v. Syndicate Bank. In paragraph 9, the Supreme Court held as
under :-
Mrs Suprova Basu & Ors vs Col Mohit Mahalanobis (Retd.) & Anr on 15 June, 2009
In East India Hotels Ltd. v. Syndicate Bank, 1992
Supp(2) SCC 29, Syndicate Bank filed the suit under s.6 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 against East India Hotels, the owner of the property. In the case
nothing was decided that goes contrary to the propositions laid down in Nair
Service and Somnath Berman. As a matter of fact, Nair Service was one of the
cases considered in that case.
G.N. Mehra vs International Airports Authority Of ... on 1 February, 1996
(9) Mr. P.N. Lekhi relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in East India Hotel Ltd. Vs. Synidicate Bank reported at 1991(6) J.T. 112. The observations relied on by Mr. Lekhi were to the effect that in our jurisprudence, governed by rule of Law, even an unauthorized occupant can be evicted only in manner provided by Law and following a proper course, (paras 30 & 38 of the judgment). It was urged that even a tress passer could resist the claim of rightful owner based on long and settled possession, acquiesced in by the owner. Mr. Lekhi argued that in the instant case the plaintiff had been in occupation since 1949 and in any case since 1986, and was in settled possession.
D.T.T.D.C. vs D.R. Mehra And Sons on 12 March, 1996
(11) In our opinion, there are two different sets of principles which have to be borne in mind. Taking up the first aspect, it is true that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he has no right to remain in property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner except by recourse to law. This principle is laid down in Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1103 (Sic 1963). That Section says that if any person is dispossessed without his consent from immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set lip in such suit. That a person without title but in "settled" possession as against mere fugitive possession- can get back possession if forcibly disposed or rather, if disposed otherwise than by due process of law, has been laid down in several cases.
Ramani (Deceased) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2015
The Supreme Court held so, after referring to its earlier judgment reported in AIR 1968 SC 620 (Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh), wherein it is observed that the Government cannot take possession of the land except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and in that case, other case referred to was the decision reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 29 (East India Hotels Ltd v. Syndicate Bank), wherein, the Apex Court dealt with 'what is meant by due course of law?' and observed that due course of law in each particular case means such an exercise of the powers by duly constituted tribunal or court in accordance with the procedure established by law under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights. It is also stated therein that due course of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty or property in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise and to have the right determination of the controversy by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of fact or liability be conclusively proved or presumed against him and this is the meaning of due course of law in a comprehensive sense.
Salim & Ors. vs . Aftab & Ors. on 3 October, 2012
Appellant has relied on observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the matter of East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Syndicate Bank, 1992 Supp.
(2) SCC 29 wherein it was held that "Law respects possession even if there is no
document to support it. No one is permitted to take law in one's own hands and
to dispossess the person in actual settled possession without due course of law."
Smt. Premwati vs Jagdish Prasad (D.) Through L.R. And ... on 3 November, 2004
In its decision in East India Hotels Ltd. v. Syndicate Bank (supra), the Apex Court analytically examined the status of a trespasser in the following words :
Mekala Kranthi Kuma vs The State Of Telangana on 18 August, 2025
NBK,J
WP_10369_2025
'The High Court in the matter of "East India Hotels Ltd."
Vs Syndicate Bank reported in 1991 (2) SCAL638, under
section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, clarified that even
after the termination or expiry of license, a license cannot
be forcibly evicted without due process of law and they are
entitled to seek legal recourse to protest their possession. In
this case, during the verification of Revenue Records and
local enquiry, it is clearly established beyond doubt that the
Pattadar Pass Book & Title Deed produced by the writ
petitioner are not issued from the Tahsil Office, Dichpally
now Indalwai since he did not furnish the valid order issued
by Tahsildar, Indalwai Respondent No. 4 herein. It is clearly
proved that the writ petitioner not in physical possession of
the suit land at any time. As such the above directions of
the Hon'ble APEX court cannot be made applicable to this
case and as such his plea on this point is rejected.'
M/S Lumbini Gardens Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2020
(ix) East India Hotels Ltd., Vs. Syndicate Bank
reported in 1992 Supp.(2)Supreme Court
Cases 29;