Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 742 (4.81 seconds)
Documents citing Ashoka Marketing Ltd. And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Punjab National Bank And Ors. Etc. Etc on 7 August, 1990

Dr. Preeti Bhatt vs Central Bank Of India on 20 July, 2017

66. We have not for a moment taken any position different from the propositions in Ashoka Mktg. [Ashoka Mktg. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank, (1990) 4 SCC 406] We are in fact in agreement therewith, and we are not accepting the submission of Mr Nariman, that only contractual tenancies were sought to be covered under that judgment, and not statutory tenancies. Tenancies of both kinds will be covered by that judgment, and they will be covered under the Public Premises Act for the subjects specified therein. The only issue is with effect from which date. That aspect was not canvassed at all before the Constitution Bench, and that is the only aspect which is being clarified by this judgment. We are only clarifying that the application of the Public Premises Act will be only from 16-9-1958, or from such later date when premises concerned become public premises on the landlord concerned becoming a government company or public corporation. When the law laid down by the different Benches of this Court including by the Constitution Benches on retrospectivity is so clear, and so are the provisions of the Public Premises Act, there is no occasion for this Court to take any other view. When this judgment is only clarifying and advancing the proposition laid down in Ashoka Mktg. [Ashoka Mktg. Ltd.v.Punjab National Bank, (1990) 4 SCC 406] , there is no reason for us to accept the objections raised by Mr Raval, that the issues raised in this matter should not be decided by this Bench but ought to be referred to a larger Bench.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 7 - A Oka - Full Document

Central Bank Of India vs Dr. (M) Preeti R. Bhatt on 20 July, 2017

66. We have not for a moment taken any position different from the propositions in Ashoka Mktg. [Ashoka Mktg. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank, (1990) 4 SCC 406] We are in fact in agreement therewith, and we are not accepting the submission of Mr Nariman, that only contractual tenancies were sought to be covered under that judgment, and not statutory tenancies. Tenancies of both kinds will be covered by that judgment, and they will be covered under the Public Premises Act for the subjects specified therein. The only issue is with effect from which date. That aspect was not canvassed at all before the Constitution Bench, and that is the only aspect which is being clarified by this judgment. We are only clarifying that the application of the Public Premises Act will be only from 16-9-1958, or from such later date when premises concerned become public premises on the landlord concerned becoming a government company or public corporation. When the law laid down by the different Benches of this Court including by the Constitution Benches on retrospectivity is so clear, and so are the provisions of the Public Premises Act, there is no occasion for this Court to take any other view. When this judgment is only clarifying and advancing the proposition laid down in Ashoka Mktg. [Ashoka Mktg. Ltd.v.Punjab National Bank, (1990) 4 SCC 406] , there is no reason for us to accept the objections raised by Mr Raval, that the issues raised in this matter should not be decided by this Bench but ought to be referred to a larger Bench.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - A Oka - Full Document

M/S S. S. Con - Build Pvt. Ltd. vs Delhi Development Authority Through ... on 9 May, 2023

I have recently in Dr. Shekhar Shah v. Government of Maharashtra dealt with the said aspect and in the light thereof need to say anything more is not felt especially as I am here not concerned with any title dispute but with a dispute as to validity of determination of lease and on which the judgments in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. supra applied by the Division Benches of this Court are final."
Delhi High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

S.S. Con-Build Pvt Ltd vs Delhi Development Authority on 9 May, 2023

I have recently in Dr. Shekhar Shah v. Government of Maharashtra dealt with the said aspect and in the light thereof need to say anything more is not felt especially as I am here not concerned with any title dispute but with a dispute as to validity of determination of lease and on which the judgments in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. supra applied by the Division Benches of this Court are final."
Delhi High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Ashok Organic Industries Ltd. A Company ... vs Asset Reconstruction Company (India) ... on 25 January, 2008

(c) However where both Parliamentary statutes are special in nature, there is a third rule which has been resorted to for resolving a situation of inconsistency. The Supreme Court in these circumstances has Page 0550 resolved the inconsistency by reference to the principles and policy underlying the two enactments. [Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd. (2007) AIR SCW 350.
Bombay High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 6 - F I Rebello - Full Document

The Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of ... vs New India Assurance Company Limited on 3 May, 2018

12. As can be seen from paragraph No.8 of the said Judgment, the principal contention raised by the Appellant in the said case, right from the stage of proceeding before the Estate Officer and even before this Court, was that, his occupation in the premises concerned was protected under the newly added Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act with effect from 1st February 1973, i.e. prior to the first Respondent acquiring title over the property from 1st January 1974. Therefore, he could not be evicted by invoking the provisions of the Public Premises Act and by treating him as an 'unauthorized occupant' under that Act. The said contention was rejected by this Court holding that, the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were not applicable to the premises concerned, as the premises were covered under the Public Premises Act. While arriving at this conclusion, this Court had relied upon the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the WP-5678-15.doc 8 Of 29 ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2018 01:20:26 ::: Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashoka Mktg Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank, (1990) 4 SCC 406. In this judgment, the contention that the provisions of the Public Premises Act cannot be applied to the premises, which fall within the ambit of the State Rent Control Act, was rejected. It was, therefore, held by this Court that, the Public Premises Act became applicable to the premises concerned from 13 th May 1971 itself i.e. after the date from when the management of the erstwhile Insurance Company was taken over by the Central Government and not from the date of merger i.e. from 1 st January 1974.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next