Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 191 (1.92 seconds)
Documents citing Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... vs Dolly Das on 13 April, 1999

National Company vs The Territory Manager on 19 September, 2019

79.We are of the view that the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another vs Dolly Das and in C.Albert Morris vs K Chandrasekharan and others (2006) 1 SCC 228 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be applied to the facts of the present case particularly in the light of the fact that in Tamil Nadu particularly in the city of Chennai where there is a special law giving rights to a tenant under the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.
Madras High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Ali Jafar And Ors. vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 1 September, 2003

10. The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the late landlady is the original owner of the land in question, which she leased out to the Corporation in the year 1975 for a period of five years from 1-4-1975 to 31-3-1980. Thereafter, the landlady extended the lease in favour of the Corporation by another ten years from 1-4-1980 to 31-3-1990. It may be noted that during the currency of the second lease period, the landlady died leaving behind her, her three sons and two daughters, namely Petitioner Nos. 8 and 12. After the expiry of the second lease period, the Corporation requested the sons of the landlady for extension of the lease period by another ten years, and on their refusal to do so, the Corporation unilaterally and without entering into any formal lease deed with the sons of the late landlady or the petitioners, extended the lease period by another ten years from 1-4-1990 to 31-3-2000, and despite expiry of the said period, the Corporation has neither paid the rents from the month of October, 1987 to the petitioners nor delivered vacant possession of the premises to the petitioners and continued to illegally squat on the property. The petitioners submit that they being legal heirs of the late landlady and her sons, are entitled to seek eviction of the Corporation from the premises in question, and they are entitled to maintain writ petition when there are no disputed questions of fact involved and all the facts stand admitted, and in support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dolly Das. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Corporation having entered into the property in question under the garb of a lease in the year 1975 and despite expiry of the authorized second lease period and the purported statutory lease period, they are still continuing in the premises without paying any rents, despite producing strict proof of their relationship and legal heirship to the late landlady, and on the contrary are requesting them to renew the lease for another period of 20 years on mutually agreed terms. The continuance of the Corporation in the premises without paying any rents and squatting over the property even after expiry of the successive lease periods, according to the petitioners, is illegal and arbitrary. The learned Counsel submitted that the Corporation being a Government of India Undertaking should be fair and reasonable in its dealings. He, submitted that a learned Single Judge of this Court in similar facts situation and against this very Corporation, allowed W.P.No. 21004 of 2000, filed by the landlords, by his order dated 5-7-2001, and directed the Corporation to vacate the premises, and though a writ appeal was filed thereagainst by the Corporation, no stay way granted by the Division Bench, and the Corporation has also delivered vacant possession of the premises to the landlords therein.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - N V Ramana - Full Document

The Society Of St. Joseph'S College ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Represented By ... on 28 February, 2007

In support of his contention that a writ petition is maintainable even in a case where the subject matter involved is an immovable property and where the facts are undisputed, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Anr. v. Dolly Das (para 9) We may now advert to the contention that the writ remedy is not appropriate in this case. Where interpretation of a contract arises in relation to immovable property and in working such a contract or relief thereof or any other fallout thereto may have the effect of giving rise to an action in tort or for damages, the appropriate remedy would be a civil suit. But, if the facts pleaded before the court are of such a nature which do not involve any complicated questions of fact needing elaborate investigation of the same, the High Court could also exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in such matters. There can be no hard and fast rule in such matters. When the High Court has chosen to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, we cannot say that the discretion exercised in entertaining the petition is wrong.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

Jag Mohan Mehrotra And Anr. vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... on 14 March, 2001

11. Learned counsel for the appellants--writ petitioners has submitted that the aforesaid view is erroneous and in the facts of the case when the main relief for quashing of annexure 5 has been granted against a Government company which admitted in annexure 5 that the lease in its favour shall expire of February 28,1999, then denial of consequential relief for a direction to vacate the land in question should not have been left for decision by the civil court. It was further submitted that there was no contractual relationship between the writ petitioners and the Corporation with regard to tenancy/lease in question because the lease agreement was with ESSO and the Corporation stepped into shoes of ESSO by virtue of operation of the Act. According to him, since the Act, particularly Section 5(1), transferred upon the Corporation only the rights which were available to ESSO and nothing more hence, being a Government company and having taken advantage of the provisions of the Act, it cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily and to continue in possession after expiry of the lease in February, 1999. Such a right of further continuance was not conferred upon the Corporation by the Act or any other law and hence, the learned single judge ought to have followed the Orissa High Court judgment as well as that of Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dolly Das [1999] 4 SCC 450 and should have directed the Corporation to hand over vacant possession of the land in question to the writ petitioners within a fixed time. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments shows that the High Court of Orissa directed the Corporation to deliver vacant possession of the premises in question and the apex court did not interfere with such direction but only fixed the time period for vacating the premises, as per request made by the Corporation.
Patna High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S K Singh - Full Document

The Society Of St. Joseph'S College vs Union Of India on 28 February, 2007

In support of his contention that a writ petition is maintainable even in a case where the subject matter involved is an immovable property and where the facts are undisputed, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1999) 4 SCC 450 in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & another vs. Dolly Das (para 9) "We may now advert to the contention that the writ remedy is not appropriate in this case. Where interpretation of a contract arises in relation to immovable property and in working such a contract or relief thereof or any other fallout thereto may have the effect of giving rise to an action in tort or for damages, the appropriate remedy would be a civil suit. But, if the facts pleaded before the court are of such a nature which do not involve any complicated questions of fact needing elaborate investigation of the same, the High Court could also exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in such matters. There can be no hard and fast rule in such matters. When the High Court has chosen to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, we cannot say that the discretion exercised in entertaining the petition is wrong."
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... vs Ali Jafaar And Ors. on 30 April, 2004

28. However, Sri Ramesh Ranganathan, learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dolly Das, , and contended that similar relief as the one granted by the learned Single Judge in the instant case, has been granted by the Supreme Court in that case against Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra). The learned Additional Advocate-General contended that the facts pleaded are of such a nature they do not involve any complicated questions of fact needing elaborate investigation. That according to the learned Additional Advocate-General, there are no disputed questions of facts requiring any resolution as such and therefore there are no impediments to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Others vs Sikha Ghosh & Ors on 14 August, 2023

27. The Division Bench also referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Dolly Das (Supra), wherein 16 this Court held that in similar facts, appellants therein were justified in approaching the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and directed the HPCL to handover vacant possession and pay the monthly rent."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - A Banerjee - Full Document

Jag Mohan Mehrotra And Ors. vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... on 20 April, 2000

9. This takes me on to the question of consequential relief raised in the present case. The matter should have normally rested at the present stage, namely, declaration to the aforesaid effect that the exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the present case is bad in law, but I am compelled to deal with the question of consequential relief on account of the elaborate and, if I may say so, able arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the requisite declaration has been granted in the present case striking down the impugned order, it should follow as a matter of natural corollary that the petitioners are entitled to possession of the plot of land in question forthwith, as has happened in the judgment of the Orissa High Court reported in Dolly Das (Smt.) v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., AIR 1994 Orissa 103, and in substance upheld by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dolly Das [1999] 4 SCC 450. Learned counsel submits that the net result at the end of the litigation in that case was that after the requisite declaration to the effect that the exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Act was impermissible, the Government company has been directed to hand over possession of the land in question to the lessor therein, a consequential relief granted in writ jurisdiction.
Patna High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 3 - S K Katriar - Full Document

N.R. Vairamani vs Union Of India, Represented By Its ... on 20 October, 2000

3. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that once the lease period expired on 31.8.1978, and the appellant issued notice showing her intention, deciding not to renew the lease, the attitude of respondents 2 and 3 insisting to remain there, without vacating the premises is nothing but depriving her right to get the vacant premises. Only under the compelling situation and in view of the decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and another v. Dolly Das, , petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction, but the learned Single Judge without considering the facts and law rejected her prayer. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 13 - K R Pandian - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next