Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Jasmeet Hoon vs Smt. Rita Johar & Ors. on 4 August, 2000

Fundacio Privada Intervida vs Additional Commissioner, Pune ... on 29 September, 2004

12. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that Section 42 of the said Act nowhere gives power or authority or jurisdiction to the Competent Authority to grant or award claim for monetary compensation or damages as such the Competent Authority has no power to entertain any prayer to determine any claim on this count. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provisions of sections 23, 24 and 39 to 48 of the said Act in support of his submissions. He also relied upon the judgments of this Court; one delivered in the case of Ramchandra Keruji Deokar v. Raghunath Shankar Bichakar, and another delivered in the case of Jasmeet Hoon v. Rita Johar, 2000(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 866 : 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 649(S.B.).
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - V C Daga - Full Document

Minoo Rustomji Shroff And Ors. vs Dali Kavasji Gai And Anr. on 13 March, 2008

9. Once the legislature by explanation (b) of Section 13-A(2) has provided that a written agreement of licence shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, it provided a special rule of evidence for the purpose of proceedings under Section 13-A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The intention of the legislature was to give finality to the existence of a fact occurring in the written agreement of leave and licence. In other words legislature intended to shut out any other evidence which would detract from the conclusiveness of that evidence. The object of expression 'conclusive evidence of fact stated therein' is aimed to give finality to the establishment of the existence of the fact or facts stated in the written leave and licence agreement from the proof of another. The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner that Explanation (b) only makes the written agreement of licence conclusive evidence as regards the licensor and not against the licensee is very difficult to be appreciated. Once it is provided by the legislature that an agreement of licence in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, it prohibits from leading any other evidence which may affect the conclusiveness of that evidence. The law laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Somawanti and Ors. case (supra) is clear answer to the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner wherein the Apex Court has held that once the law says that certain evidence is conclusive it shuts out any other evidence which would detract from the conclusiveness of that evidence. Not only that when a certain evidence is made conclusive evidence, it prohibits any other evidence to be led which may detractfrom the conclusiveness of that evidence, but also the Court has no option to hold the existence of the fact otherwise when such evidence is made conclusive. Once an execution of the agreement of leave and licence is not disputed before the Competent Authority in an application under Section 13A(2) based on such leave and licence agreement, it is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein and no other evidence can be led inconsistent with the said facts by either of the parties and is conclusive between the parties of the facts stated therein. The Competent Authority has no option but to hold that the facts stated therein do exist. Same position holds good also in a case where the execution of written agreement of leave and licence is denied and the Competent Authority after recording evidence reaches the conclusion that execution of such agreement for leave and licence has been proved by the licensor.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - J H Bhatia - Full Document
1