Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Atul Gupta And Ors. vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. And ... on 7 January, 1991

Courts vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. (Dcm ... on 2 April, 2011

However, I find that the ruling Sh. Atul Gupta and Others Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the present case as in the case in hand the petitioner has taken a plea that the agency agreement RW­2/1 is merely an eye wash and a sham document and cannot be relied upon. I find force in this plea of the petitioner. Just merely recording the terms of an agency agreement in black & white does not make the agreement reliable unless and until its terms and conditions are followed by both the parties. A tenant cannot be permitted to retain the tenanted premises just for the shake of his convenience particularly when he is not in exclusive possession of the tenanted premises and is not bothered to follow the terms and condition of the agency agreement.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Arvind Jain vs Mrs. Sneh Kotwal on 25 January, 2008

Turning to the subletting to defendant no. 2 M/s Novex Dry Cleaners, the defendant no. 1 has claimed that the agreement was merely an agency agreement. The agency agreements have been Ex. DW-1/5 & 6. As held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sh. Atul Gupta & Ors. Vs Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. & Ors. 1991 (1) RCJ 281 an agency agreement will not create subtenancy. However, what is material is the terms of the agency agreement. In that case the Company had a right to reenter the premises and therefore it was held that there was no parting with possession. In the present case the terms of the agency agreement need to be considered to determine whether the document was merely an 22 agency agreement or was a camouflaged lease agreement.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1