Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 724 (6.13 seconds)
Documents citing Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And ... vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004

Vinoth vs The Transport Commissioner on 8 February, 2018

29. Only a person, who is considered / construed to be Lawful / legal tenant, can deal with the concerned property. After the expiry of Lease, which is admitted in the present case and when there is no tenancy agreement or an existing tenancy between the parties and more particularly, even the disposal of the civil suit in one way or other, may not heighten the case of the Appellants, for the simple reason it is not a mandatory one for the grant of licence and before that there is no vested right on the part of the concerned to take the consent of the Landlord. Looking at from any point of view and also this Court by looking into the ingredients of Rule 150 of Petroleum Rules and also taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court between Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another V. N.R.Vairamani and Another reported in (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 579 at Special Page 586, cited on behalf of the Appellants comes to an irresistible conclusion that it is not for the Appellants / Petitioners to approach the Writ Court and file the present Writ Appeal because of the reason that the Writ Court is not the proper forum of adjudication of disputed factual and legal questions / controversies concerning to parties. In any event, in the instant case, the Appellate as well as the Original Authorities had rejected the claim of the Appellants / Writ Petitioners and to grant a licence, undoubtedly, the consent of concerned landlord is very much essential and the same cannot be dispensed in any manner. Looking at from any angle, the view taken by the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition is free from any legal flaw. Resultantly, the Writ Appeal fails.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.Ashrafunnisa vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

33. The learned Judge while deciding the said judgment had also taken note of the judgment in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. N.R.Vairamani reported in (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 579 and distinguished the said judgment and it is the sheet anchor for the respondents 1 and 2 to sustain their claim as to the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioners herein in the form of a suit for eviction/ejectment.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

Mytrah Vayu (Brahamputra) Private ... vs M/S. Solar Energy Corporation Of India ... on 18 March, 2024

It is well settled that words in a judgement should not be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances.' One must not construe a judgment as if it were an Act of Parliament. (Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579). Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of a Statute, and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into a lengthy discussion, but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. (London Graving Dock Co.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Sulabh International Social Se vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 October, 2015

48. This Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579, emphasized that the Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which the reliance is placed. It was further observed that the judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes and the observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. The Court went on to say that circumstantial applicability, one additional or different fact may make a work of difference between conclusions in two cases."
Patna High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

National Company vs The Territory Manager on 19 September, 2019

75.Therefore, to ask the 1st respondent to vacate the property without giving the 1st respondent any remedy under the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 would amount to bye passing the law and depriving the 1st respondent of the legal remedy available to it as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat petroleum Corporation Ltd versus N.R.Vairamani (2004) 8 SCC 579.
Madras High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next