Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 157 (1.71 seconds)
Documents citing Helper Girdhiarbhai vs Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri And ... on 6 May, 1987

Natvarlal Virjibhai (Since Decd ... vs Arunbhai Haridas Tanna on 11 September, 2003

The Supreme Court has laid down the scope and powers of the High Court while entertaining such revisions under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent At. The Supreme Court in the case of Patel Valmik Himatlal & Ors. vs. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai 1998 (2) GLH 736 = AIR 1998 SC 3325 while approving and reiterating the principles laid down in its earlier decision in the case of Helper Girdharbhai vs. Saiyad Mohmad Mirsaheb Kadri (AIR 1987 SC 1782), held that High Court cannot function as a court of appeal, cannot appreciate the evidence on record, cannot discard concurrent findings of fact based on evidence recorded by the Courts below, and cannot interfere on grounds of inadequacy or insufficiency of evidence, and cannot interfere, except in cases where conclusions drawn by the courts below are on the basis of no evidence at all, or are perverse. A different interpretation on facts is also not possible merely because another view on the same set of facts may just be possible.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abdullah vs I.Augustin on 29 January, 2021

In Helper Girdharbhai Vs. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri & Ors. (1987) 3 SCR 289, the tenant had entered into a partnership and the firm was carrying on business in the tenancy premises. This Court held that if there was a partnership firm of which the appellant was a partner as a tenant, the same would not amount to sub-letting leading to forfeiture of the tenancy; for there cannot be a sub-letting unless the lessee parted with the legal possession. The mere fact that another person is allowed to use the premises while the lessee retains the legal possession is not enough to create a sub-lease. Thus, the thrust is, as laid down by this Court, on finding out who is in legal possession of the premises. So long as the legal possession remains with the tenant the mere factum of the tenant having entered into partnership for the purpose of carrying on the business in the tenancy premises would not amount to sub- letting.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document

Mrs. Kiran Seonie vs Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma on 23 December, 2019

In the case of Helper Girdharibhai Vs. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri & Ors. (1987) 3 SCC 538, it was held that it does not RCT No.­166/16 (Old RCT No.20/13) Mrs. Kiran Seonie & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar Sharma & Anr. Page No. 28 of 31 amount to subletting if the tenant becoming a partner of partnership firm and allowing the firm to carry on business in the demised premises while himself retaining legal possession thereof.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Celina Coelho Pereira & Ors vs Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar & Ors on 30 October, 2009

In Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohd. Mirasaheb Kadri [(1987) 3 SCC 538] the tenant had entered into a partnership and the firm was carrying on business in the tenancy premises. This Court held that if there was a partnership firm of which the appellant was a partner as a tenant, the same would not amount to sub-letting leading to forfeiture of the tenancy; for there cannot be a sub-letting unless the lessee parted with the legal possession. The mere fact that another person is allowed to use the premises while the lessee retains the legal possession is not enough to create a sub-lease. Thus, the thrust is, as laid down by this Court, on finding out who is in legal possession of the premises. So long as the legal possession remains with the tenant the mere factum of the tenant having entered into partnership for the purpose of carrying on the business in the tenancy premises would not amount to sub-letting.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 202 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Guajrat State Civil Supplies ... vs Minaben Rajesh Sanghavi & ... on 23 August, 2016

"5. The ambit and scope of the said section came up for consideration before this Court in Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri and after referring to a catena of authorities, Sabyasachi Mukherji, J. drew a distinction between the appellate and the revisional jurisdiction of the courts and opined that the distinction was a real one. It was held that the right to appeal carries with it the right of rehearing both on question of law and fact, unless the statute conferring the right to appeal itself limits the rehearing in some way, while the power to hear a revision is generally given to a superior court so that it may satisfy itself that a particular case is decided according to law. The Bench opined that although the High Court had wider powers than that which could be exercised under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet its revisional jurisdiction could only be exercised for a limited purpose with a view to satisfying itself that the decision under challenge before it is according to law. The High Court cannot substitute its own findings on a question of fact for the findings recorded by the courts below on reappraisal of evidence. Did the High Court exceed its jurisdiction?
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Z K Saiyed - Full Document

M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased ... vs M/S Mahendra Watch Company on 10 April, 2026

In Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri the tenant had entered into a partnership and the firm was carrying on business in the tenancy premises. This Court held that if there was a partnership firm of which the appellant was a partner as a tenant, the same would not amount to sub-letting leading to forfeiture of the tenancy; for there cannot be a sub-letting unless the lessee parted with the legal possession. The mere fact that another person is allowed to use the premises while the lessee retains the legal possession is not enough to create a sub-lease. Thus, the thrust is, as laid down by this Court, on finding out who is in legal possession of the premises. So long as the legal possession remains with the tenant the mere factum of the tenant having entered into partnership for the purpose of carrying on the business in the tenancy premises would not amount to sub-letting.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Patel vs Dhirajlal on 28 March, 2011

The ambit and scope of the said section came up for consideration before this Court in Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri, (1987) 3 SCC 538 : (AIR 1987 SC 1782) and after referring to a catena of authorities, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. drew a distinction between the appellate and the revisional jurisdictions of the Courts and opined that the distinction was a real one. It was held that the right to appeal carries with it the right of rehearing both on questions of law and fact, unless the statute conferring the right to appeal itself limits the rehearing in some way, while the power to hear a revision is generally given to a particular case is decided according to law. The Bench opined that although the High Court had wider powers than that which could be exercised under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet its revisional jurisdiction could only be exercised for a limited purpose with a view to satisfying itself that the decision under challenge before it is according to law. The High Court cannot substitute its own findings on a question of fact for the findings recorded by the Courts below on reappraisal of evidence. Did the High Court exceed its jurisdiction ?
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R H Shukla - Full Document

Sofiqul Islam @ Safiqul Islam vs The Narcotics Control Of Bureau And Anr on 30 September, 2022

20. It is to be mentioned here that while exercising revisional jurisdiction the High Court cannot substitute its view for that of the trial court in two views are possible. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Helper Girdharbhai vs. Saiyed Mohmad Mirsaheb Kadri and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC Page No.# 10/10 1782.
Gauhati High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahbubur Rahman vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) ... on 30 September, 2022

24. It is to be mentioned here that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot substitute its view for that of the trial court in two views are possible. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Helper Girdharbhai vs. Saiyed Mohmad Mirsaheb Kadri and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1782. Same view is taken in various case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is now well settled that While considering submissions for exercise of revisional powers against an order of framing charge the High Court must remind itself that no interference in the order of trial Court would be called for unless some glaring injustice is staring in its face. The view taken by the trial Court on the question of charge should not be substituted by the Revisional Court with its own if the view taken by the Trial Court is such that could possibly be taken under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Gauhati High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next