Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Jayaprakash Shamsundar Mandare vs Laxminarayan Mulidhar Mundade And Ors. on 14 January, 1983

Chandrakant Yeshwant Pardeshi And Anr. vs Laxminarayan Theatres Pvt. Ltd. ... on 21 June, 2002

In the same ruling, that is, reported in Jayprakash Shamsunder Mandare v. Laxminarayan Murlidhar Mundade, 1983(1) Bom.C.R. 552, it is held that when the tenant's transfers his lease hold rights and interest in the tenanted property alongwith goodwill and if it is against the terms of lease and if he is prohibited from transferring the property or creating sublease, then it is against the provisions of section 15(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. Therefore, considering this ruling cited by Mr. Shah I find that in this case also there is no evidence to show that defendant No. 1 at the time of execution of assignment actually transferred his going concern with stock in trade and goodwill."
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Sadbuddhi Brahmesh Wagh, Rajadhiraj ... vs Sheela Mahabaleshwar Wagh (Since ... on 28 March, 2003

Mr. Tulzapurkar submitted that Late Shri Vinayakrao being a Sculptor, his good will ended when he died. Subsequently, it was Brahmesh, who carried on the business and developed his goodwill. It was no longer the business of the deceased Vinayakrao in the year 1997 when the Award was made and, therefore, the question of selling the business as a going concern did not arise. He relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Jayprakash S. Mandare v. Laxminarayan M. Mundade and Ors. reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. page 362 in support wherein the Court observed in para-11 that the business must be a live business, a going business.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 5 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Smt. Julia Rodrigues vs Smt. Chandra Gulab Advani And Ors on 7 October, 2024

16) In exercise of power conferred under Proviso to Section 15(1) of the Bombay Rent Act, the State Government has issued Notification No. 5975/33 dated 24 September 1948. None of the parties have produced the entire Notification, and even the Appellate Court has culled out truncated portion thereof in its judgment. However the said Notification has been referred to in large number of judgments and it would be apposite to make a reference to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Jayprakash Shyamsunder Mandare v. Laxminarayan Murlidhar Mundade,5
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Thakorlal Mohanlal Tankaria And Anr. vs Saraswatiben W/O. Vadilal Laljibhai on 18 February, 1993

10. Now, if we turn to the plaint again, it is clearly mentioned in para 6 that defendant No. 1 has handed over the running business to defendant No. 2 and the portion which was with defendant No. 1, as a tenant, has also been assigned by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 exclusively. In para 7 of the plaint, it has been further stated that this act is wholly unauthorised on the part of defendant No. 1. When this activity, which is not in dispute at all so far as the defendants are concerned, is viewed in light of the said Notification under Section 15 of the Rent Act and evaluated in view of the recitals in Exh. 49, the dissolution of the year 1972, clearly it would fall under the exception. Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar has cited AIR 1983 Bombay 364 (Jayprakash Section Mandare v. Laxminarayan M. Mundade) where it has been clearly laid down and I fully agree with at that the burden of proof would be on the person who pleads exception. However, in the matter before the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court, the position was not as clear as is to be found in the instant case more particularly in the plaint and dissolution deed Exh. 49. There is therefore, no question of any burden of proof left to be discharged on either side.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sau. Snehalata Raghunath Joshi vs Laxman Hari Mulik on 9 January, 2009

5. The Defendants challenged the decree by Regular Civil Appeal No.491 of 1984. By order dated 05/10/1990, the Additional District Judge, Sangli has allowed the Appeal partly, as stated above by holding that Defendant No.2 is protected under Section 15(1) r/w (13)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, "the Bombay Rent Act"). The ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:13:13 ::: ( 4 ) relevant Section 15(1) read with Section 13 (1) of the Bombay Rent Act provides protection only when the said sub-tenant / or subsequent occupant proves his case of exemption, as claimed. Therefore, heavy burden lies upon the tenant and the person in occupation to show that the tenant has transferred his total interest in the tenanted premises along with the establishment. The business which was running concern at the time of assignment/ transfer. Jayprakash Shyamsunder Mandare Vs. Laxminarayan Murlidhar Mundade & Ors., 1983 Mh.L.J. 362 (D.B.).
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document
1