Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 84 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Khimjee Thakarsee vs The Pioneer Fibre Co. Ltd. on 3 December, 1940

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Fazalbhoy Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 19 December, 1975

In the case of Khimjee Thakarsee v. Pioneer Fibre Co. Ltd. AIR 1941 Bom 337, Blackwell J., sitting as a single judge, has stated (at page 339) that if the defendants in that case chose to leave the structures on the property of the lessors, then they lost all right, title and interest in those structures, and further stated the result of such a course would be that it becomes the right of the lessors to do what they liked with those structures - to destroy them, or leave them there as they chose. It is, however, significant to note that Blackwell J. did not lay down in his judgment in the said case that the lessor becomes the owner of those structures by reason of the failure of the lessee to remove them within the time allowed to him. The learned judge has, in his judgment, stopped short of saying so, perhaps, advisedly. It is true that the learned judge has mentioned in his judgment the commentary of Sir Dinshah Mulla on this point, but in the absence of his imprimatur to the same, it cannot be said that it is part of his decision.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Darryl D Monte (Since Deceased) Thr. ... vs Vadilal Kunverji Gada And Ors. on 6 April, 2026

72) Respondent Nos.4 to 6 have relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in South Asia Industries Private Ltd. (supra) in support of the contention that sub-tenant is a necessary party where his induction is with the consent of the landlord. The case again involved suit for eviction in respect of the premises let out to a tenant. The case did not involve the issue of creation of lease in respect of vacant land and right of third parties to occupy the structure constructed by the tenant. The judgment therefore would have no application to the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Darryl Dmonte (Since Deceased) Thr. ... vs Vadilal Kunverji Gada And Ors. on 6 April, 2026

72) Respondent Nos.4 to 6 have relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in South Asia Industries Private Ltd. (supra) in support of the contention that sub-tenant is a necessary party where his induction is with the consent of the landlord. The case again involved suit for eviction in respect of the premises let out to a tenant. The case did not involve the issue of creation of lease in respect of vacant land and right of third parties to occupy the structure constructed by the tenant. The judgment therefore would have no application to the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ajit Sing Wala (Deleted) Thr Lrs. ... vs Shri Tilak Khetshi Shah (Deceased Thr ... on 4 May, 2026

A reference was also made to another decision on this Court in Khimjee Thakersee vs. Pioneer Fibre Co. Ltd., AIR 1941 Bom. 337 where it was held that on determination of the lease the lessees were required to deliver over possession of the demised premises to the lessors and the lessees were entitled to remove the structures which they might have erected during the continuance of the tenancy. In para 21, the Apex Court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to ask for relief as to the possession of the land and he was also entitled to ask for demolition of the structures and for grant of vacant possession of the plots.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sakarchand Chhaganlal vs Controller Of Estate Duty, Gujarat on 4 October, 1968

13. The decision of the Bombay High Court in Khimjee Thakarsee v. Pioneer Fibre o. Ltd. is also to the same effect. It is, therefore, indisputable that the deceased lost his right to the superstructure when his right to remain in possession of the original plot No. 1 came to an end and he handed over possession of the reconstituted plots to Sakarchand and Ramanlal without removing the superstructure. He had thereafter no interest in the superstructure and it was not liable to be included in the principal value of his estate.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 6 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Norman Joseph Ferreira & Anr. vs Arjandas Newandram, Heir & L.R. Of ... on 19 December, 2000

In Khimjee Thakarsee v. Pioneer Fibre Co. Ltd., this Court held that after the determination of the lease, lessees were required to deliver over possession of the demised premises to the lessor and the lessees were entitled to remove the structures which they might have erected during the continuance of the tenancy. The lessees, however, failed to remove the structures on the date of determination of the tenancy and on the next date the premises were occupied by other lessees, it was held that the lessees could remove the structures on and not after determination of tenancy and having failed to remove the same on the determination of tenancy, they lost not only their right to remove the structures after the determination of tenancy but also all right, title and interest in those structures. Both the judgments were considered by the Apex Court in the Appeal filed by the lessee Jamnadas, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed against him for possession in respect of the land as well as super structure.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Nashik Diocesan Council Trust Through ... vs Shaikh Chhotubhai Kankarbhai Deshmukh ... on 22 July, 2024

25. It has also been urged that during the period of continuance of lease, judgment debtor have raised construction over the disputed property. There is no decree passed by the trial Court in respect of structures and as such, decree is not capable of being executed. Reliance is placed by Respondents on a judgment in the case of Khimjee Thakarsee Vs. Pioneer Fibre Co.Ltd., reported in AIR 1941 Bombay 337, wherein it has been held that:
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kodomudi Ramchandran Laxminarayan vs Ashok D. Bhuta And Ors on 25 July, 2024

A reference was also made to another decision on this Court in Khimjee Thakersee vs. Pioneer Fibre Co. Ltd., AIR 1941 Bom. 337 where it was held that on determination of the lease the lessees were required to deliver over possession of the demised premises to the lessors and the lessees were entitled to remove the structures which they might have erected during the continuance of the tenancy. In para 21, the Apex Court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to ask for relief as to the possession of the land and he was also entitled to ask for demolition of the structures and for grant of vacant possession of the plots.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Ravindra Pawhari Singh vs Shri. Ashok D. Bhuta on 25 July, 2024

A reference was also made to another decision on this Court in Khimjee Thakersee vs. Pioneer Fibre Co. Ltd., AIR 1941 Bom. 337 where it was held that on determination of the lease the lessees were required to deliver over possession of the demised premises to the lessors and the lessees were entitled to remove the structures which they might have erected during the continuance of the tenancy. In para 21, the Apex Court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to ask for relief as to the possession of the land and he was also entitled to ask for demolition of the structures and for grant of vacant possession of the plots.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next