Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing M/S.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs R.Ravikrishnan on 8 August, 2011

M/S. Crystal Services vs Hindustan Petroleum on 12 July, 2017

12. It is clear that Section 2(4)(i) of the Act will not apply to the case on hand, as the lease has already expired. The plaintiff will only come within the definition of Section 2(4)(i)(a) of the Act. So far as Section 2(4)(ii)a is concerned, it clearly states that person who continues in possession after determination of tenancy will also be a Tenant under the Act. The very same question was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. R. Ravikrishnan & another reported in 2011-4-L.W.395, wherein Division Bench held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

M/S. Crystal Services vs Hindustan Petroleum on 12 July, 2017

12. It is clear that Section 2(4)(i) of the Act will not apply to the case on hand, as the lease has already expired. The plaintiff will only come within the definition of Section 2(4)(i)(a) of the Act. So far as Section 2(4)(ii)a is concerned, it clearly states that person who continues in possession after determination of tenancy will also be a Tenant under the Act. The very same question was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. R. Ravikrishnan & another reported in 2011-4-L.W.395, wherein Division Bench held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

M.Ashrafunnisa vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

In the judgment reported in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. R.Ravikrishnan, 2011 (5) CTC 437, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, on a remand from the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately discussed the concept of legal possession and actual possession and held that when the Petroleum Corporation entered into a Dealership Agreement with a dealer, though they are in legal possession of the demised property, they are not in actual possession of the property and to invoke the Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, the tenant must be in actual possession of the property and as the Appellant was not in actual possession of the property, the Appellant was not entitled to invoke the provision of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

Now Having Its Office At vs Dr.B.S.Aiyyappan on 2 June, 2017

Before the learned Judge, Sales officer of the petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked as documents. The respondent was examined as RW1 and Exs.B1 to B29 were marked. The learned Judge, considering the averments made in the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and judgments relied on by the parties, dismissed the CTOP No.1 of 2013 vide on 24.06.2015 filed by the petitioner. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed CMA No.1 of 2016 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Madurai. The learned Appellate Judge independently considering the materials on record, judgment of the Trial Judge and judgments relied on by the respondent, dismissed CMA No.1 of 2016 on 17.09.2016.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

M.Ramakrishnan (Died) vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 9 October, 2017

The position is also reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., v. R.Ravikrishnan and another reported in 2011 4-L.W. 395. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the judgments referred to above made the position clear that the word 'possession' should only mean actual physical possession of the land and building and that oil companies who may be in legal possession but not in physical possession are not entitled to file an application under Section 9 of Madras City Tenants' Protect Act. Though it is stated in this case that the respondent had appointed a dealers and it is the dealer appointed by the respondent is in actual possession, the respondent did not produce any material to controvert such assertion. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the issue whether the corporation need to prove physical possession in order to seek relief under Section 9 of the Act has been referred to a larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court. This gives an indication that the respondent is not in physical possession. However, the learned counsel for respondent raised a legal plea that a factual issue cannot be entertained at this stage.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - S S Sundar - Full Document

Now Having Its Office At vs Dr.B.S.Aiyyappan on 2 June, 2017

Before the learned Judge, Sales officer of the petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked as documents. The respondent was examined as RW1 and Exs.B1 to B29 were marked. The learned Judge, considering the averments made in the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and judgments relied on by the parties, dismissed the CTOP No.1 of 2013 vide on 24.06.2015 filed by the petitioner. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed CMA No.1 of 2016 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Madurai. The learned Appellate Judge independently considering the materials on record, judgment of the Trial Judge and judgments relied on by the respondent, dismissed CMA No.1 of 2016 on 17.09.2016.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

Dr.E.Chitra vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on 14 October, 2022

In this regard it is useful to refer the judgment of the Division Bench this 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.8928 of 2013 Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. R.Ravikrishnan reported in 2011 [5] CTC 437, wherein the Corporation took a plea under section 9 of the City Protection Act that since the Corporation entered into a dealership agreement with the dealer and the Corporation is not in actual possession of the property and it has been held that Corporation cannot invoke Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document

G.H.Basheer Ahamed vs P.Baskar on 21 December, 2023

In this regard it is useful to refer the judgment of the Division Bench this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Vs. R.Ravikrishnan reported in MANU/TN/3330/2011: 2011 [5] CTC 437, wherein the Corporation took a plea under Section 9 of the City Protection Act that since the Corporation entered into a dealership agreement with the dealer and the Corporation is not in actual possession of the property and it has been held that Corporation cannot invoke Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document

G.Bhuvaneswari vs The Senior Manager on 10 February, 2017

In the judgment reported in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. R.Ravikrishnan, 2011 (5) CTC 437, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, on a remand from the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately discussed the concept of legal possession and actual possession and held that when the Petroleum Corporation entered into a Dealership Agreement with a dealer, though they are in legal possession of the demised property, they are not in actual possession of the property and to invoke the Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, the tenant must be in actual possession of the property and as the Appellant was not in actual possession of the property, the Appellant was not entitled to invoke the provision of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - B Rajendran - Full Document
1   2 Next