Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Subhash Chandra vs Har Govind Singh on 12 July, 1977

Aditya Birla Finance Ltd vs Vyomesh J. Trivedi on 26 September, 2018

Bhatia Global v Asian Natural Resources, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 10696; Ningauda Girimallappa Patil v Nabisahed, AIR 1942 Bom 263; Barnes Investments v Raj K Gupta, (2001) 7 SCC 94; Surendra Nath Goswami v Rajani Kanta Das, AIR 1917 Cal 9(2); Pradip Vaid v Universal Constructors, AIR 2006 Del 4; Subhash Chandra v Har Govind Singh, AIR 1978 Pat 260; Kancherla Lakshminarayana v Muttaparthi, (2008) 14 SCC 258.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - G S Patel - Full Document

Vankayala Suryanarayana And Anr. vs Sri Sitarama Chit Fund Company ... on 24 September, 1992

12. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra v. Govind in support of his contention that even for surrender by tenant, the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act are held to be mandatory and non-compliance of those provisions vitiates the surrender. The judgment of the Supreme Court shows that the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act prescribing the manner of verification of a surrender of tenancy by a tenant in order to be valid and effective are mandatory. Taking into consideration the imperative language their Lordships of Supreme Court held that failure to comply with those provisions renders the surrender non est. The decision of the Supreme Court with regard to the surrender by the tenant is thus based upon the imperative language used in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Even the Andhra Tenancy Act requires intervention of the Court for surrendering the tenancy rights by the tenant. But, since the Rent Control Act is silent with regard to any procedure prescribed for surrendering the tenancy by the tenant by not incorporating any provision prohibiting surrender by the tenant, I hold that the Rent Control Act does not either specifically or impliedly prohibit the surrender by the tenant which is totally a voluntary act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kewal Singh vs Umesh Mishra on 24 March, 1983

In this connection reference may be made to Section 128 of the Code under which such amendments are made by the High Court. Section 128 provides that such rules framed by the High Court shall not be inconsistent with the provision in the body of this Code. At this place it may be mentioned that while in the Patna Amendment a different procedure with respect to the investigation of claim made under Rule 58 and its disposal and the forum of redress has been provided, which is different from the present amended central Rule 58 inasmuch as in the Patna Amendment there is a provision that the claim filed under Rule 58 shall be "Investigated" while in the present amended Central R, 58 the provision is that on such a claim being filed the claim will be 'adjudicated' by the Executing Court. In view of the difference between the nature of the decision an enquiry made on a claim-petition filed under Rule 58 between the Patna Amendment and the present amended Central Rule 58 (namely, that while in the former it was a claim to be 'investigated', in the latter it was to be 'adjudicated') a difference was also made in the forum of redress as in the former case after the decision made on such a claim in Rule 58 the forum prescribed is for filing a suit under Rule 63 while in the latter, namely, in the amended Central Rule 58, the decision given in such enquiry has the status of a decree, therefore there is a provision for an appeal against such an adjudication. Thus, it would be found that there are fundamental differences, which may be said to be strong inconsistency between the Patna amendment and the amended Central Rule 58 as amend-ed by the Act of 1976 and, therefore, the Patna Amendment really should be deemed to have been abrogated by coming into force of the Central Rule 58 by the Amendment Act of 1976. Such was also the view expressed by this Court in three cases, namely, in Subhas Chandra v. Har Govind Singh (AIR 1978 Pat, 260).
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1