Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 112 (2.10 seconds)
Documents citing Lakshminarayan Guin & Ors vs Niranjan Modak on 3 December, 1984

Sundara Rajan And Anr. vs Sundaramoorthy on 11 January, 1993

7. The other decision cited by the learned Counsel for the defendant, viz., Lakshmi Narayan Guin v. Niranjan Modak does not actually deal with the question of waiver at all. There was also no claim at all to purchase the suit site. The case arose under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. How far the said Act is similar to the abovesaid Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act is also not quite clear since the said Act as such was not produced before me. However, paragraphs 6 to 9 of the said judgment were relied on by the said counsel. In these paragraphs, no doubt, it was observed that where the decree for eviction is passed by the trial Court against the tenant under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the statute giving protection to tenants against eviction is extended to the concerned area during the pendency of appeal against the decree for eviction, the appellate court is bound to take into account the change of law and extend its benefits to the tenant and consequently set aside the decree of the trial court and dismiss the suit. Section 13 of the said West Bengal Act is said to provide for a qualified protection to the tenant against eviction inasmuch as it injuncts the court from passing an order or decree in landlord's suit for recovery of possession except on the limited grounds detailed in Sub-section (1) thereof and that Sub-section (6) therein provides that no suit for the recovery of possession of any of the grounds mentioned in Sub-section (1) can be filed by the landlord unless he has given to the tenant one month's notice expiring with the month of tenancy. The High Court therein found that the notice for eviction given was only of less than one month and that, therefore, there was no compliance with the abovesaid Section 13(6). Consequently, the High Court held that the suit was incompetent. The said decision of the High Court was no doubt approved by the Supreme Court. But, as already stated by me, the question of waiver was not considered at all by the Supreme Court in the said case, nor was there any claim to purchase the suit site in the said case. So, that decision will have no application to the abovesaid question posed by me, based on the claim for purchase of the suit site, made by the defendant.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Gopal Ch. Paul vs Smt. Amala Mondal on 12 October, 1988

Under such circumstances, when there is a vacuum, the said vacuum filled up automatically by the provisions of the Transfer Property Act and in the instant case, after the decree was passed but the first appeal was pending, the provisions of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act was extended to the said area and when it was extended to that area, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court on which the reliance was placed by Mr. Mukherjee to the case of Laxmi Narayan Guin v. Niranjan Modak reported in AIR 1985 SC II) the appeal; should be decided on the footing that the changed law should apply and the validity of the decree should be tested on the basis of changes of law. In view of the ratio of that judgment of the Supreme Court, the provisions of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act should govern this case. In any event, the subsequent amendment made in the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act in the year 1986 by which the provisions of the said Act were made applicable to that area with retro-spective effect and as such this case stands on a sound footing than that of the case decided by the Supreme Court in the case referred to. True, that under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, an embargo was there and the Court should not pass any decree for recovery of possession, unless the grounds were fulfilled. But that is not the decisive factor.
Calcutta High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

K Ramnarayan-Petitioner vs . Shri Pukhraj-Respondent on 18 May, 2015

Further, it appears that the coordinate bench has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Lakshmi Narayan Guin & Ors. vs. Niranjan Modak (supra) in which the Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the provisions of the West Bungal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The provisions of the said West Bungal Act more particularly Section 13, being totally different from the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act of 2001, the said decision can not be made applicable to the instant petitions.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

The Management Of Bharat Earth Movers ... vs J. Benjamin S/O J. Jayanathan on 13 June, 2006

14. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned Single Judge is right in modifying the Award of the Labour Court in favour of the respondent-workman. Apart from the said reasons, the reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel Mr. K. Kasturi on the decision in M/s. Firestone's case cited supra in support of his contention that the Disability Act has no retrospective effect and therefore it is not applicable to the facts and situation of the present case is not tenable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Narayan Guin's case cited supra wherein it is held that the amended provisions to the statutory Act are applicable to the cases where there is an appeal pending against the order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Hemadri Cements Pvt. Ltd. vs Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. And Ors. on 1 August, 1995

The court's answers to the above, however, are not very relevant for us except that the Full Bench has considered various aspects of the applicability of enforceability of a certain bar or prohibition to the jurisdiction of the court in cases where a suit is pending adjudication, a decree is passed in the suit but is pending in appeal and a suit which has been finally disposed of after all the appeals including the appeal in the Supreme Court and besides the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Narayan Guin v. Niranjan Modal (supra) considered several other judgments of the courts including the Supreme Court to finally say that irrespective of the fact that a decree was passed and affirmed in first appeal and in case second appeal is filed challenging the same, in view of the fact that the appeal is nothing but a re-hearing of the suit and continuation of the suit, the prohibition equally applies to the first appellate court or even to the second appellate court. The Full Bench's opinion is found in these words :
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - C V Sastri - Full Document

K Ramnarayan-Petitioner vs . Shri Pukhraj-Respondent on 18 May, 2015

Further, it appears that the coordinate bench has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Lakshmi Narayan Guin & Ors. vs. Niranjan Modak (supra) in which the Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the provisions of the West Bungal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The provisions of the said West Bungal Act more particularly Section 13, being totally different from the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act of 2001, the said decision can not be made applicable to the instant petitions.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Sanjeeb Barik And Others vs Nilamani Maharana And Others on 13 July, 2021

28. Again in Lakshmi Narayan Guin v. Niranjan Modak (supra) the question was whether the first appellate court was bound to take into account the change of law brought out by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 while deciding the appeal. In the present case the change in law did not take place during the pendency of any petition in a Court. The change in law came into force after the decision of the Collector, Bhadrak and even before the writ petition was filed in this Court. Since the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was to determine the correctness of the order of the Collector, the decision of the Collector could not be invalidated by applying a law that was not in force when the Collector decided the matter.
Orissa High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S K Panigrahi - Full Document

K Ramnarayan-Petitioner vs . Shri Pukhraj-Respondent on 18 May, 2015

Further, it appears that the coordinate bench has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Lakshmi Narayan Guin & Ors. vs. Niranjan Modak (supra) in which the Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the provisions of the West Bungal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The provisions of the said West Bungal Act more particularly Section 13, being totally different from the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act of 2001, the said decision can not be made applicable to the instant petitions.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next