Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 71 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing Om Prakash Gupta vs Rattan Singh And Another on 17 December, 1962

Amar Singh And Anr. vs Dalip on 12 March, 1981

The learned Judges doubted the correctness of the decision in Muni Lal's case (1968) 70 Pun LR 473)(supra) having been based on a decision of the patna High court in Baijnath Sao v. Ram Prasad, AIR 1951 Pat 529 which was later on over ruled in Kishun Sah's case were approved as the were in consonance with the judgment of the supreme court in Om Parkash Gupta's case (1963) 65 Pun LR 543), (para. 11, page 983)(supra).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Jiya Rani @ Jiya Joshi vs Narinder Kumar Dhingra & Ors on 29 November, 2018

14. The main plea of respondents No. 1 to 7/plaintiffs is that the findings of the Rent Controller that a relationship of landlord tenant exists between the parties is not final as the Rent Controller is a court of limited jurisdiction. It is pleaded that the civil court is not bound by such a finding of the Rent Controller. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Gupta vs. Rattan Singh & Anr.(supra) held as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - J Nath - Full Document

Ram Parkash Kapur vs Bhagwanti on 11 October, 1972

(9) The question then arises if the Controller is bound to decide this question on merits before passing the order or he can make the order on the basis of prima-facie evidence without finally deciding this question. The answer, in our view, has to be in the negative. This is what the Supreme Court has said in Om Parkash Gupta's case (supra) (i) :- "NOWproceedings under section 15 are primarily meant for the benefit of the tenant, and the section authorises the Controller, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, to make an order directing the tenant to pay the amount found on calculation to be due to the landlord or to deposit it with the Controller, within one month of The date of the order. Such an order can be passed by the Controller for the benefit of the tenant, only if the Controller decides that the person against whom the proceedings for eviction had been initiated was in the position of a tenant."
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

J.C. And Sons And Anr. vs Ghafrana Banobi Ahmed Ali on 17 January, 2007

6. In this background reference can also be made to other rulings relied upon by petitioners. Om Prakash Gupta v. Rattan Singh is the constitutional bench judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court which considers provisions of Section 15 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The appellant before Hon'ble Apex Court registered proceedings for his eviction before Rent Controller on the ground that premises were let out to one trade union for office, residential purposes and its tenancy was not terminated and Rent had not been demanded from it. The Hon. Apex Court has held that under Rent Control Law, the special Tribunal has to proceed on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant existing between parties and mere denial by tenant of tenancy is not sufficient to oust jurisdiction of such special Tribunal. It has been held that only when such Tribunal comes to the conclusion that landlord-tenant relationship does not exist, it will have no jurisdiction. Again in the facts of present case, this ruling has no application.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Mrs.Mina Srinivasan Krishnan vs Arun Bhaskar Adarkar on 16 June, 2014

"9. Our attention was drawn by Sree Harbans Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants to Section 98 of the Act, as to the power of the Revenue Court to refer to the Civil Court a decision by the Revenue Court if it thought proper and also to Section 99, where there is power to refer to High Court question as to jurisdiction. These provisions, in our opinion, do not in any way affect the question whether the decision of the Revenue Court under the Revenue Act can operate as res judicata in certain cases like the present. The limits of the jurisdiction would be apparent by the fact that in all suits by a landlord to eject a tenant, do not encompass suits to decide whether a person is a tenant or not or whether the plaintiff is a landlord or not. The question was answered by this Court in Om Prakash Gupta v. Rattan Singh (1964)1 SCR 259 where Sinha, C.J. dealing with the Delhi Rent Control Act observed at pages 264 and 265 as follows:
Bombay High Court Cites 116 - Cited by 3 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Pritam Dass vs Jiya Rani on 14 May, 1981

D. R. Gellatly v. J. R. N. Cannon relied by Mr. Seth is of no assistance because the Bench clearly found that the tenant has precluded himself by his own act from raising the plea against an order being passed under Section 14(4) of the Act against him, apart from the fact that these observations were obiter, 0m Parkash Gupta v. Dr. Rattan Singh 65 P.L.R. (1963) 543 only recognised that Controller will no doubt have to determine the question of relationship of tenancy because a simple denial of relationship cannot oust the jurisdiction of tribunals and though the tribunals are of limited jurisdiction but they are tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction and their orders are final and not liable to be questioned in collateral proceedings like aseparate suit for eviction or execution proceedings. But this authority does not decide as to what is to be the nature of evidence and proof required at the stage of passing an order under Section 15(1) of the Act. No doubt if a point is raised by the tenant like abatement of rent because he has been denied the full use of premises some sort of an enquiry will be necessary before an order under Section 15(1) can be passed but the said enquiry may be bassed, as naturally it would be at that stage, on prima facie evidence.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 20 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

Vijaya Hospitality vs Tony P.A on 15 September, 2023

24. In the light of the aforenoted decision, this Tribunal is of the earnest view that the issue regarding cancellation of allotment of shares to the 2 nd Appellant would fall within the scope and ambit of Section 59 of the Act. As regarding the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that NCLT has wide scope of powers under Section 241 and 242 of the Act and any direction given in this Section would not contemplate compliance to Section 62 (1) (c) of the Act, cannot be sustained. It is held that even if NCLT has directed allotment of shares under Section 241 and 242 of the Act, the procedural requirements in respect of such allotment, has to be met. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of 'Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Rattan Singh and Anr.' in CA No. 5341/1962 observed that 'the Tribunals under the act being Creatures of the Statute have limited jurisdiction and have to function within four corners of the Statute creating them'. Though Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 gives inherent power, but power under this Section cannot be used 'dehors' the statutory Provisions of Law. The contention of the Appellants that Section 62 of the 'Act' need not be adhered to, does not hold good as it is a settled rule of interpretation of Statutes that when power is given under the Statute to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of Judgments has reiterated this Principle. This Tribunal is of the earnest view C.A. (AT) (CH) No. 18/2021 Page 26 of 27 that the direction given by the NCLT, vide Order dated 12/01/2017 has to be complied within the framework of Law as provided for under Section 62 (1) (c) of the Companies Act, 2013. Keeping in view the aforenoted reasons, this Tribunal is of the earnest view that allotment of shares leading to alteration in the Register of Members can be challenged before the NCLT under Section 59 of the 'Act'. Finally, it is observed that the issue which has attained finality is the 'allotment of shares' and not the 'procedure to be adopted for allotment'.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next