Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Tangerine Electronics Systems Pvt. ... vs Indian Chemicals And Ors. And Shahid ... on 4 March, 2004

The Provident Investment Company Ltd vs M/S Devidayala Industries Limited (In ... on 23 June, 2017

56. The Full Bench of this Court in case of Tangerine Electronics Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indian Chemicals & Ors., 2004 (2) Mh.LJ 305 has considered the provisions of section 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and has held that the tenant's right to remain in occupation of the non-residential premises governed by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is a proper law and such property is saleable and the tenant has disposing power over the interest of tenancy for his benefit and in view thereof, the interest of the tenant of non-resident premises to which the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 applies is attachable and salable in execution of the decree ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 01:09:29 ::: kvm 31/40 CAL634.16 against the tenant.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

The Official Liquidator High Court ... vs Devidayal Industries Ltd on 23 June, 2017

56. The Full Bench of this Court in case of Tangerine Electronics Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indian Chemicals & Ors., 2004 (2) Mh.LJ 305 has considered the provisions of section 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and has held that the tenant's right to remain in occupation of the non-residential premises governed by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is a proper law and such property is saleable and the tenant has disposing power over the interest of tenancy for his benefit and in view thereof, the interest of the tenant of non-resident premises to which the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 applies is attachable and salable in execution of the decree ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 01:09:31 ::: kvm 31/40 CAL634.16 against the tenant.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Sucheeta Kedarnath Sethi vs Surinderkumar Banga on 19 August, 2019

In fact, the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge was held to be no good law by Full Bench in Tangerine Electronics Systems P. Ltd. Vs. Indian Chemicals, AIR 2004 Bombay 198. The Full Bench dealt with Section 26 of the Rent Act and observed that the said Section forbids the voluntary transfer of interest in the premises by the tenant but does not prevent the transfer by the court. Where the transfer is by an operation of law and not by act of the parities, Section 26 shall have no application.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R G Ketkar - Full Document

Sucheeta Kedarnath Sethi vs Surinderkumar Banga on 21 August, 2019

In fact, the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge was held to be no good law by Full Bench in Tangerine Electronics Systems P. Ltd. Vs. Indian Chemicals, AIR 2004 Bombay 198. The Full Bench dealt with Section 26 of the Rent Act and observed that the said Section forbids the voluntary transfer of interest in the premises by the tenant but does not prevent the transfer by the court. Where the transfer is by an operation of law and not by act of the parities, Section 26 shall have no application.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R G Ketkar - Full Document

Udyavara R. Acharya And Anr vs Mr. Jugal Kishore Sharda on 27 April, 2020

She points out that the Executing Court has totally disregarded the statutory impact on the Obstructor's rights, nor has it allowed the Obstructor to lead evidence. Ms. Savitri has also explained how Compartment No.5 has been further divided and how a company changing hands does not amount to creating further subtenancy. In the end, she has relied on most of the decisions the petitioners have relied on. According to her, those decisions, in fact, help the Obstructor. Besides, she has also relied on these decisions: Tangerine Electronics Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Chemicals [12], and Gordhandas Lalchand v. Kubchand Tirthdas Tailor [13].
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - D S Naidu - Full Document

Udyavara R. Acharya And Anr vs Mr. Jugal Kishore Sharda on 27 April, 2020

She points out that the Executing Court has totally disregarded the statutory impact on the Obstructor's rights, nor has it allowed the Obstructor to lead evidence. Ms. Savitri has also explained how Compartment No.5 has been further divided and how a company changing hands does not amount to creating further subtenancy. In the end, she has relied on most of the decisions the petitioners have relied on. According to her, those decisions, in fact, help the Obstructor. Besides, she has also relied on these decisions: Tangerine Electronics Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Chemicals [12], and Gordhandas Lalchand v. Kubchand Tirthdas Tailor [13].
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - D S Naidu - Full Document

Vasantrao Udhavrao Shivale And Ors. vs Wamanrao Genuji Shirole (Deceased By ... on 16 September, 2004

5. The Full Bench of this Court in Tangerine Electronics Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mambai v. Indian Chemicals Mumbai and Ors. and Shahid Shaukat Sarkar of Mumbai and Ors. had an occasion to deal with the provisions of Section 15 of the Rent Act and Section 26 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short "Act of 1999"). It is useful to quote paragraph 19 of the report where the Full Bench has compared both the provisions. Paragraph 19 of the report reads thus:
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - D B Bhosale - Full Document

Sundeep Singh Kanwaljit Singh Lamba vs Rajesh Sureshchandra Sha And Ors on 12 April, 2019

38. In the present case, the notification dated 12.5.1948 issued under Section 15(1) of the Bombay Rent Act by the State of Bombay is clearly inconsistent with the proviso to Section 26 of the Maharashtra 23 / 27 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2019 05:49:37 ::: 24 CRA.144-19 Rent Act. Thus said notification is not saved after repeal of the Bombay Rent Act and enforcement of the Maharashtra Rent Act insofar as the controversy raised in the present C.R.A. is concerned. The reliance placed by Mr. Singh on Section 15(1) of the Bombay Rent Act, Section 25 of the M.G.C. Act as also the decisions in Shireen Dady Adenwalla (supra), Tangerine Electronics (supra) and Harkesh Chand (supra) does not advance the case of defendant No.3. In my opinion, the Appellate Court was justified in passing the eviction decree under Section 16(1)(e) of the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R G Ketkar - Full Document
1   2 Next