Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Bavasaheb Walad Mansursaheb Kotri And ... vs West Patent Press Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 20 July, 1953

M/S. Indian Sulphacid Industries Ltd vs M/S. Vijay Ashok Parmod on 29 February, 2012

63. Similarly the judgments titled as Swami Jain Ram Chela Sarju Das Vs. Hari Singh reported as AIR 1967 Punjab 159, Bavasahed Walad Vs. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. reported as AIR 1954 Bombay 257 and A.H. Forbes Vs. L.E. Ralli reported as AIR 1925 PC 146 cited by the defendant were passed in a different set of facts and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. They do not lay down the proposition that an unregistered lease deed can create a permanent tenancy.
Delhi District Court Cites 85 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Indian Sulphacid Industries Ltd vs Ms. Alka Bhandari on 29 February, 2012

65. Similarly the judgments titled as Swami Jain Ram Chela Sarju Das Vs. Hari Singh reported as AIR 1967 Punjab 159, Bavasahed Walad Vs. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. reported as AIR 1954 Bombay CS no:1344/08 Page No: 26/96 257 and A.H. Forbes Vs. L.E. Ralli reported as AIR 1925 PC 146 cited by the defendant were passed in a different set of facts and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. They do not lay down the proposition that an unregistered lease deed can create a permanent tenancy.
Delhi District Court Cites 86 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mulshankar Somnath By His Heirs Bai ... vs The Agent, Bharatkhand Textile ... on 5 March, 1965

As regards the aforesaid two clauses Their Lordships of the Bombay High Court pointed out in the case of Bavasaheb Walad Mansursaheb Kotri v. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. already referred to as follows at page 65: The emphasis is on the right of the tenant to remain in possession subject to payment of rent and the subsequent clause giving him the option to terminate the lease is merely incidental and subsidiary. Therefore in our judgment there is nothing in the aforesaid clauses which detracts from the permanent nature of the lease which has been expressly provided for in the lease deed. On the contrary the fact that the lease was being entered into for the purpose of erecting permanent structures and for establishing a Mill would clearly indicate that the intention of the parties was that it was to be a permanent lease.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sau. Nakabai vs Mahadu Sakharam Adsule And Ors. on 14 August, 1979

18. Reliance also was placed by Mr. Apte on the judgments of this Court in Donkagouda Ramchandragouda v. Re-vanshidappa Shivaligappa reported in AIR 1943 Bom 148 and in the case of Bavasaheb v. West Patent Press Co. , and the Privy Council judgment in the case of Baboo Lekhraj Roy v. Kunhya Singh reported in (1877) 4 Ind App 223 to show how benefit of tenancies, for indenfinite period, cannot be claimed by such tenants' heirs. Close reading of these cases would show how, tenancies in each of these cases were found, on the wording at the lease deeds, to be for the benefit of the tenant personally and durable only for his lifetime and were on that ground held to be not heritable. Period's description "for indefinite period" appears to have been attracted due to the inherent uncertainty of the period of such tenant's life itself. Duration of tenancy in the present case is governed by Section 4B of the Act which is expressly made applicable under Section 88B (1) of the Act. It will be misnomer to call such a tenancy protected by the statute as a tenancy for 'an indefinite period.' to attract the ratio of these cases. Reliance thereon by Mr, Apte therefore, is equally misconceived.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Chapsibhai Dhanjibhai Danad vs Purushottam on 5 April, 1971

648 and lastly, Bavasaheb's case 56 Bom. L.R. 61. As to the last case, the Court at page 889 of the report expressed its "complete agreement" with the observations of Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was), namely, that the nature of the tenancy created by a document must be determined by construing the document as a whole, that if the tenancy is for building purposes, prima facie it might be arguable that it was intended for the life-time of the lessee or might in certain cases be even a permanent lease, and lastly, that whether it was a tenancy for life or a permanent tenancy must ultimately depend upon the terms of the contract itself. As can be seen from an earlier passage on that very same page, the Court distinguished Bavasaheb's 56 Bom. L.R. 61 case on the ground that the lease there did not contain a provision similar to Clause (14) in the case before it. Besides, the Court sought an additional support for its conclusion that the lease was permanent in the provision which stipulated that the rent would be Rs. 350 a year for the first 20 years, Rs. 400/-for the next 10 years and Rs. 500/-thereafter until the lessee continued to occupy the land, which provision indicated that the lease was not intended to be only for the life-time of the lessee. It is clear from the decision that what clearly weighed with the Court was the fact that the document of lease distinctly indicated that the parties intended that the rights under the lease were to be hereditary. The question, therefore, is whether the lease under consideration is of the type in the case of Sivayogeswara Cotton Press. .
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

Chapsibhai Dhanjibhai Danad vs Purushotram on 5 April, 1971

The conflict of opinion amongst these decisions has since then been resolved by the decision in Bavasaheb's case(6) having been expressly approved by this Court in Sivavogeswara Cotton Press v. Panchaksharappa (7) The lease here was for building factories and other structures and was for a period of 20 years certain. It, however, provided that the lessee could continue to remain in possession so long as he desired and observed the terms of the lease which provided for a higher rent for the first 10 years after the expiration of the said 20 years and a still higher rent thereafter. Cl. (14) of the lease in addition provided that it was to be binding "on me, my heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, as well as on. your heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns......... The question was as to the (1) [1899]I.L.R.26 Cal.204.(2) [1905] I.L.R. 32 Cal. 648. (3) 7 Bom. L. R. 401. (4) [1876-77] L. R. 4 I. A. 223.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - J M Shelat - Full Document
1   2 Next