Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Peter Alex D'Souza vs Prithi Paul Singh on 1 April, 2002

Maria Manuela Piedade vs Vassant Shet Shirodkar on 22 June, 2006

In Peter Alex D'Souza v. Prithi Paul I Singh , a Division Bench of this Court noted that in the case of I a licence, there is something less than a right I to enjoy the property in the licensee, it cannot be exercised by servants and agents, is terminable and a transferee of the property is not as such bound by the licence. On the other hand, in the case of a lease, there is a t transfer of a right to enjoy the property or in t other words, the lessee is entitled to enjoy the property. One has to gather and find out the true intention of the parties as to 1 whether the document creates a lease or license, the dominant intention of the parties e is to be gathered from the terms of the document irrespective of the labels that the parties may put upon it and exclusive possession by itself would not militate against the concept of a licence, if the circumstances t negate any intention to create a tenancy.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Venkatesh Krishna Bhandarkar vs Mr. Henry D'Souza on 22 July, 2025

13. Thirdly, the evidence sought to be adduced by the Plaintiff was of no significance in the absence of pleading. The Appellate Bench could not have delved into parol evidence to ascertain the intent of the parties. To buttress these submissions, Mr. Palekar, placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of D. H. Maniar and Ors Vs Waman Laxman Kudav,1 M/s A.V.R. and Co and Ors Vs Fairfield Cooperative Housing Society Ltd & Ors,2 Mangala Waman Karandikar (D) Through LRs Vs Prakash Damodar Ranade 3 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Peter Alex D'Souza Vs Prithi Paul Singh.4 1 AIR 1976 SC 2340.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - N J Jamadar - Full Document

Venkatesh Krishna Bhandarkar vs Mr. Henry D'Souza on 22 July, 2025

13. Thirdly, the evidence sought to be adduced by the Plaintiff was of no significance in the absence of pleading. The Appellate Bench could not have delved into parol evidence to ascertain the intent of the parties. To buttress these submissions, Mr. Palekar, placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of D. H. Maniar and Ors Vs Waman Laxman Kudav,1 M/s A.V.R. and Co and Ors Vs Fairfield Cooperative Housing Society Ltd & Ors,2 Mangala Waman Karandikar (D) Through LRs Vs Prakash Damodar Ranade 3 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Peter Alex D'Souza Vs Prithi Paul Singh.4 1 AIR 1976 SC 2340.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - N J Jamadar - Full Document
1