Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.48 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Preeti Bhatt vs Central Bank Of India on 20 July, 2017

Mahabir Prasad vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation on 22 January, 2020

In so far as decision in Band Box Private Limited v. Estate Officer, Punjab and Sind Bank & Anr., (Supra) and the case of Dr. Preeti Bhatt v. Central Bank of India (Supra), the proposition of law that is culled out is that the PP Act as well as State Rent Control Laws are referable to entries in the the concurrent list and operate in their own field. It is only in the event of repugnancy that PP Act prevails PPA No. 10/16 Mahabir Prasad. Vs. SDMC & Anr. Page 9 of 10 over the State Rent Laws for eviction of unauthorized tenants and for collection of arrears of rent. However, where unauthorized occupants is shown to be a tenant prior to coming into force of the PP Act, the only course available for his eviction is under the State Rent Law. The plea by Mr. Chawla, ld. Counsel for the appellant that his client has been a tenant under the erstwhile owner prior to the coming in force of the PP Act falls flat on the ground when it is seen that no adverse finding was given by the Ld. Appellate Court vide order dated 19.01.1981 or for that matter order dated 25.05.1998 under PP Act with regard to the rejection of the claim of the appellant that he was a tenant under erstwhile owner. In other words, the findings given by the Estate Officer vide order dated 31.05.1680 that appellant failed to prove that he was a tenant occupying premises since 1962 remained undisturbed. The only issue that appear to have have been canvassed at the relevant time was execution of Gift Deed upon which, at the cost of repetition, a clear finding was given by the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in his order dated 28.02.2003 RESULT
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

41. Though learned counsel for the Respondent has relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Preeti Bhatt Vs. Central Bank of India, 2017 (6) Mh.L.J. 33, in my considered opinion, the same cannot be applicable, as, in that case, the property was purchased by the Central Bank of India on 22 nd May 1972; whereas, the tenant was in possession of the said premises from the year 1950 and in view thereof, it was held that, as the tenant enjoyed the protection of the Bombay Rent Act, since prior to the Public Premises Act came into effect, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suhas H. Pophale Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the eviction order cannot be sustained.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Indian Coffee Workers ... vs The Estate Officer, Western Zone, For ... on 31 July, 2018

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Dr Priti Bhatt v. Central Bank of India reported in 2017 (6) Mh. L. J. 330 in which the Division Bench of this Court has held that as the petitioner's father was original tenant in the suit premises from the year 1950, the proceedings under the Public Premises Act against the tenant were not competent. In my respectful submission, the view so taken being based upon the facts peculiar to that case, would have no application to the present case, for the reason that at the time when the petitioner was inducted in the premises as tenant in the present case, the respondent No.2 was already a Government Company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 and, therefore, the premises belonged to the Government Company which was not the case in Dr Preeti wherein the ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2018 01:32:36 ::: 19 tenanted premises were purchased by a body corporate like the Central Bank of India subsequently in the year 1972.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S B Shukre - Full Document

American Bureau Of Shipping vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. And ... on 4 June, 2019

3. Mr.Pooniwala, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the averments made in the two applications by his client and the impugned orders passed by the Estate Officer. He also strongly placed reliance on the paragraph 64 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhas H. Pophale Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & its Estate Officer, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 657 and the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr.Preeti Bhatt Vs. Central Bank of India, reported in 2017 (6) Mh.L.J. 330 and would submit that in view of an admitted position that the tenancy of the petitioner was prior to the date of the said Act having come into force, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pophale's case (supra), the Estate Officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed with two cases filed by the respondent no.1.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Indo-German Chamber Of Commerce vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. And ... on 20 June, 2019

5. This court by an order dated 4th June, 2019 in Writ Petition (L) No.1210 of 2019 in case of American Bureau of Shopping vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Suhas H.Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Its Estate Officer, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 657, the judgment of Division Bench of this court in case of Dr.Preeti Bhatt vs. Central Bank of India, reported in 2017(6) Mh.L.J.330, order dated 4th December, 2017 in case of Muncherji Nusserwanji Cama & Anr. vs. The Board of Trustees of the Mumbai & Ors., judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ashoka Marketing vs. Punjab National Bank, 1990 (4) SCC 406, judgment of ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 10:55:03 ::: kvm 3/4 10-WP438.19 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Srinivasa Rice Mills & Ors. vs. ESI Corporation reported in (2007) 1 SCC 705 and in case of Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 732 has held that the issue of jurisdiction being a mixed question of fact and law and in view of the fact that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pophale's case (supra) having been referred to larger bench has refused to interfere with the similar order of the Estate Officer.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

All India Manufacturers Organization ... vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ... on 24 January, 2020

2] The sum and substance of the applications moved by the Petitioners is, they are not governed by the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 but Bombay Rent Act, particularly having regard to Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the matter of Dr. Preeti Bhatt , cited supra. 3] All these applications are rejected by the impugned orders dated 9/7/2018, 26/10/2018 and 4/2/2019. As such, this Petition. 1 2017(6) Mh.L.J.330 2/8 (13) WP-3387-19.doc 4] While questioning all these orders, learned Counsel for the Petitioners would strenuously urge that once the issue is covered by Division Bench Judgment of this Court and in view of the order of this Court in Writ Petition (St) No. 12296 of 2015 preferred at the behest of the Petitioners in the very same matter decided on 30/6/2015, least that was expected of the Estate Officer was to allow the application and relegate parties to the proceedings under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act and not under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners, so as to substantiate his arguments referred to above, would further add that even if by Judgment dated 30/6/2015, this Court has directed the Estate Officer to deal with the proceedings in accordance with Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the matter of Dr. Preeti Bhatt cited supra, subsequent developments are required to be taken into account. The learned Counsel would draw support from various other judgments so as to substantiate his contentions on the same line.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - N W Sambre - Full Document

Anil Devraj Sarad vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd on 10 June, 2022

7] Drawing support from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and its Estate Officer reported in (2014) 4 SCC 657, so also judgment of this Court in the matter of Dr. Preeti Bhatt vs. Central Bank of India in Writ Petition No. 1290 of 2021 decided on 20/7/2017, he would urge that provisions of Eviction Act are not attracted to the facts of the present case and as such order impugned passed by the Estate Officer is liable to be quashed and set aside, thereby allowing the prayer for staying the proceedings before the Estate Officer.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N W Sambre - Full Document

Smt. L. M. Belaugi vs Bank Of Maharashtra And Anr on 27 November, 2025

3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2014) 4 SCC 657 and the decision of this Court in Dr. Preeti v. Central Bank of India, 2017 (6) Mh.L.J. 330 . He contends that the petitioner's vested rights as a protected tenant under the Bombay Rent Act do not stand extinguished merely because the premises subsequently became public premises. He submits that the petitioner's case fits within Contingency No. 2 referred to in paragraph 64 of Suhas Pophale. On this basis, he urges that the orders passed by the Estate Officer and the City Civil Court deserve to be quashed.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A B Borkar - Full Document
1