Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1019 (2.97 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004

Rajendrakumar Keshavlal Bhatt ... vs Abbasi Grain Stores Throough His ... on 21 April, 2015

6.1 Reference was made to the application at Exhibit-18 filed by the respondent and more particularly, to paragraph 4 thereof, to submit that the only ground put forth by the respondent is that the earlier order does not contain any such condition. It was submitted that in effect and substance, what the respondent seeks is a review of the previous order which is not permissible in law. The attention of the court was invited to the reply filed by the petitioner in response to the application Exhibit-15 to point out that the petitioner had specifically taken a contention that if the respondent was aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate court of not imposing any condition for grant of stay, it was for the respondent to challenge such order before the higher forum. Moreover, in response to the application Exhibit-5 as well as during the course of hearing thereof, no claim had been made for Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation during the pendency of the appeal. It was pointed out that in the reply itself, the petitioner herein had distinguished between the facts of case in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705, and the facts of the present case, viz., at the time when the applicant therein had opposed the grant of stay by the Rent Control Tribunal, he had requested that an amount of Page 7 of 35 HC-NIC Page 7 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 02:01:21 IST 2015 C/SCA/380/2010 JUDGMENT Rs.15,000/- to be directed to be deposited as a condition for grant of stay. It was submitted that therefore, the facts of the case before the Supreme Court being different, the same would have no applicability to the facts of the present case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

Sunil Goyal &Anr vs Addi Disttict Judge &Ors on 22 March, 2011

It is relevant to mention that three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court also followed the principles laid down in Atma Ram Properties(P) Limited Vs. Federal Motors (P) Limited(supra) in Achal Misra Vs. Rama Shanker Singh & Others, (2005) 5 SCC 531, and Crompton Greaves Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 547. Therefore, it is a settled law that appellate court has jurisdiction to put the applicant under order 41 Rule 5 C.P.C. on such reasonable terms as would, in its opinion, reasonably compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of the eviction decree by grant of stay, while passing the stay order in his favour.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S Federal Motors Pvt Ltd vs M/S Atma Ram Properties Pvt Ltd on 7 May, 2014

The Bench of three judges of the Supreme Court, in State of Maharashtra & Ors. v Supermax International Private Limited & Ors.,60 repelling the contention that the principle enunciated in Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. v Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd.,61 applies only in respect of proceedings under the Act and not under diverse rent control legislations of other states observed:62 "66. The Rent Act was the socio-legal response to certain historical developments, namely, the acute shortage of housing in the aftermath of the World War, the great influx of refugees in a number of States of the Union following the partition of the country and the massive migration inside the country from rural areas to the urban centres as a result of rapid urbanisation. All these developments that took place almost at the same time skewed the law of supply and demand totally in favour of the landlord. The need of the hour, therefore, was to protect the tenant, who would have otherwise been left completely at the mercy of the landlord. The legislature intervened and brought in the Rent Act, severely restricting the grounds for enhancement of rent and for eviction of the tenant from the rented premises, thus regulating the relationship between the landlord and the tenant beyond the general law under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In this regard the Court responded in equal, if not greater measures. But after about three quarters of a century and three generations later when things are no longer the same and the urban centres are faced with newer problems, some of those having their origin in the Rent Act itself, there is the need to take a relook on the Court's attitude towards the relationship between the landlord and the tenant and to provide for a more level ground in the judicial arena."
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - N Waziri - Full Document

M/S National Tyres And Anr vs Addi District And Session Jud Ors on 22 March, 2011

It is relevant to mention that three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court also followed the principles laid down in Atma Ram Properties(P) Limited Vs. Federal Motors (P) Limited(supra) in Achal Misra Vs. Rama Shanker Singh & Others, (2005) 5 SCC 531, and Crompton Greaves Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 547. Therefore, it is a settled law that appellate court has jurisdiction to put the applicant under order 41 Rule 5 C.P.C. on such reasonable terms as would, in its opinion, reasonably compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of the eviction decree by grant of stay, while passing the stay order in his favour.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Debonair Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs Eshrat Jahan Also Known As Ishrat Jahan & ... on 5 February, 2024

On the following questions of law there is unanimity between us: The principle on which mesne profits or occupation charges can be directed to be paid to the plaintiff pending appeal by the defendant against an order of eviction as laid down in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. reported in (2005) 1 SCC 705 would also apply in case of suits for eviction against occupiers and mesne profits pending trial. This is subject to the plaintiff establishing prima facie that the defendant has practically no defence to the claim of the plaintiff. The award of mesne profits or occupation charges need not be based on the market value of the property. It should only satisfy the test of reasonableness.
Calcutta High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - I P Mukerji - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next