Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.36 seconds)
Documents citing Chunilal Shivlal (By His General ... vs Chimanlal Nagindas on 10 August, 1966

Firm Of Harbanslal Jagmohandas & Anr vs Prabhudas Shivlal on 16 April, 1971

Paragraph No. 2 of the special leave petition refers to the conflict between the Gujarat and- Bombay High Courts with regard to the scope and applicability of Section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The contrary view taken by the Gujarat High Court is the one reported in Chunilal Shivlal v. Chimanlal Nagindas (3), which has been followed by the two subordinate courts. No doubt the High Court has summarily rejected the Civil Revision Petition. Therefore, what is stated in paragraph No. 2 is a pure statement of the legal position and factually it is correct. We have also referred to the grounds Nos. 2, 3 and 16 which are purely legal contentions. The contention of Mr. Shroff, learned counsel for respondent is that a reading of these grounds gives the impression that the attention of the Gujarat High Court was drawn to the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court when the Civil Revision Petition was disposed of. Assuming it is so, in our opinion, it cannot be stated that there is any misstatement or untrue averment contained in these grounds. It must be remembered that they are legal contentions taken in the grounds attacking the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. We fail. to see in what other manner a party can draw the attention of this Court to a conflict between two High Courts with regard to the interpretation of a substantially similar provision of a statute. It is needless to state that if a party wants to have a particular legal position settled in a High Court, reconsidered on the basis of a different decision on identical point by another High Court and specially with regard to the same statute, he must draw the attention of the learned Judge to that decision bearing on the point in question. This will be a very proper thing for a party to do. But that is far from saying (1) C. A. No. 982 of 1965 decided on 25-4-1968. (2) C. A. No. 85 of 1967 decided on 8-9-1970. (3) 7 C. L. R. 945.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 48 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Harbanslal Jagmohandas & Anr vs Prabhudas Shivlal on 12 March, 1976

The Gujarat High Court in the decision in Ambalal's case (supra) and in Chunilal Shivlal v. Chimanlal Nagindas took the view that in order to avoid the operation of section 12(3) (a) of the Act the dispute in regard to standard rent or permitted increases must be raised at the latest before the expiry of one month from the date of service of notice under section 12(2) of the Act and it is not enough to raise a dispute for the first time in the written statement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - A N Ray - Full Document

Thakkar Ramanlal Shivlal vs Thakkar Himatlal Ranchhoddas And Anr. on 18 February, 1967

The validity of this view taken by the Division Bench in Ambalal v. Babaldas was questioned in the subsequent case of Chunilal v. Chimanlal on the strength of certain observations made in two subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court but on consideration of those decisions a Division Bench of this Court consisting of A. D. Desai J. and myself, held that the view taken in Ambalal v. Babaldas was not overruled and must still be regarded as good law and it must be held that the dispute in regard to standard rent or permitted increases contemplated by Section 12(3)(a) is a dispute which must be raised at the latest before the expiry of one month from the date of service of the notice under Section 12(2) and it is not enough to raise the dispute for the first time in the written statement. These decisions clearly lay down that the dispute regarding the standard rent or permitted increases referred to in Section 12(3)(a) is a dispute which must be in existence at the date of the notice under Section 12(2) or at any rate before the expiry of one month after the service of such notice. If such dispute is in existence at the date of the notice under Section 12(2) or at any rate before the expiry of one month after the service of such notice, the case would be taken out of Section 12(3)(a) for in that event it would be possible to say that the second condition is satisfied. The second condition of Section 12(3)(a) does not require that there should be a dispute regarding the standard rent or permitted increases at the date of the suit. What Section 12(3)(a) requires is that there should be no dispute right upto the expiration of one month from the date of service of the notice under Section 12(2) and if such dispute is raised at the latest before the expiry of one. month from the date of service of the notice under Section 12(2), it would be sufficient to take the case out of Section 12(3)(a). Once it is found that there is a dispute in regard to the standard rent or permitted increases in existence, at the date of the notice under Section 12(2) or at any rate before the expiration of one month after its service, the case would go out of Section 12(3)(a) and it would not fall to be governed by Section 12(3)(a) merely because the dispute which was in existence at the date of expiration of one month from the service of the notice under Section 12(2) was subsequently resolved before the suit could be instituted by the plaintiff.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Sharadchandra Manilal Thakkar vs Kanchanben Wd/O Ratilal Thakarsi on 10 July, 2018

(a) of the Act was not in dispute. It was also not in dispute that such notice was received by the applicant - defendant. Till the suit was filed on 24.09.2002, i.e. beyond a period of two months from the date of notice neither did the applicant - defendant raise a dispute with regard to the standard rent nor did he deposit the rent. This was incumbent for the defendant to do in order to avoid operation of Section 12(3)(a) of the Act. Mr. Shah has relied on another decision of this Court in the case of Chunilal Shivlal vs. Chimanlal Nagindas reported in 1966(7) GLR 945.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document
1