Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 203 (1.36 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd vs M/S. Amrit Lal & Co. & Anr on 27 August, 2001

Securities And Exchange Board Of India vs Classic Credit Ltd. on 21 August, 2017

The above position has been considered affirmatively by this Court also in Nani Gopal Mittal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1636; Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises v. Amrit Lal and Co., (2001) 8 SCC 397; R. Kapilnath v. Krishna, (2003) 1 SCC 444; Ramesh Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 14 SCC 696; and Videocon International Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2015) 4 SCC 33. From a perusal of the conclusions drawn in the above judgments, we are inclined to accept the contention, that change of ‘forum’ could be substantive or procedural. It may well be procedural when the remedy was yet to be availed of, but where the remedy had already been availed of (under an existing statutory provision), the right may be treated as having crystalised into a vested substantive right.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 157 - Cited by 0 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Securities And Exchange Board Of India vs Classic Credit Ltd. on 21 August, 2017

The above position has been considered affirmatively by this Court also in Nani Gopal Mittal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1636; Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises v. Amrit Lal and Co., (2001) 8 SCC 397; R. Kapilnath v. Krishna, (2003) 1 SCC 444; Ramesh Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 14 SCC 696; and Videocon International Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2015) 4 SCC 33. From a perusal of the conclusions drawn in the above judgments, we are inclined to accept the contention, that change of ‘forum’ could be substantive or procedural. It may well be procedural when the remedy was yet to be availed of, but where the remedy had already been availed of (under an existing statutory provision), the right may be treated as having crystalised into a vested substantive right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 154 - Cited by 198 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Shiv Kumar Santuka vs Priti Bhagat And Ors. on 7 May, 2007

In the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amrit Lal & Co. and Anr. (supra), the apex Court observed that although after repeal of the Rent Control Act a suit for eviction under the provisions of the T.P. Act was maintainable, yet two parallel proceedings; one under the General Law and the other under the Rent Control Act cannot be continued and that the landlord has to withdraw one of the proceedings. In view of this observation, during the pendency of the HRC appeal, the respondent landlord could not have maintained two parallel proceedings if the cause of action was same in both the proceedings. The ratio noted by the apex Court in the above noted case would, however, not be applicable, if the causes of action in the HRC proceeding and the suit were different even though the parties, the subject-matter and the ground for eviction might be same in both the proceedings. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the findings in the HRC appeal operate as res judicata in the suit. The first appellate Court reversed the said finding by simply observing that the suit was not hit under the principle of res judicata. Neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court examined or gave any finding as to whether the cause of action noted in the HRC proceedings and the suit was one and the same. As has been observed earlier, even if the parties, the subject-matter and the ground of eviction are same, yet a subsequent suit may not be hit under the principle of res judicata if the causes of action are different.
Orissa High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A K Parichha - Full Document

Sl. Case No vs Wp(C)/34769/2020 Dinabandhu Das ... on 19 September, 2024

(Even pending proceedings will be affected); Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amrit Lal & Co., (2001) 8 SCC 397 : AIR 2001 SC 3580 (pending proceedings will be affected).] Similarly on the reasoning that the right of a tenant to get standard rent fixed and not to pay contractual rent in excess of standard rent under a Rent Control Act is only a protective right and not a vested right, it has been held that when during the pendency of an application for fixation of standard rent, the Act is amended and it ceases to apply to the premises in question, the application is rendered incompetent and has to be dismissed as infructuous.
Orissa High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - M S Raman - Full Document

Sl. Case No vs Wp(C)/34769/2020 Dinabandhu Das ... on 19 September, 2024

(Even pending proceedings will be affected); Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amrit Lal & Co., (2001) 8 SCC 397 : AIR 2001 SC 3580 (pending proceedings will be affected).] Similarly on the reasoning that the right of a tenant to get standard rent fixed and not to pay contractual rent in excess of standard rent under a Rent Control Act is only a protective right and not a vested right, it has been held that when during the pendency of an application for fixation of standard rent, the Act is amended and it ceases to apply to the premises in question, the application is rendered incompetent and has to be dismissed as infructuous.
Orissa High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - M S Raman - Full Document

Sl. Case No vs Wp(C)/34769/2020 Dinabandhu Das ... on 19 September, 2024

(Even pending proceedings will be affected); Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amrit Lal & Co., (2001) 8 SCC 397 : AIR 2001 SC 3580 (pending proceedings will be affected).] Similarly on the reasoning that the right of a tenant to get standard rent fixed and not to pay contractual rent in excess of standard rent under a Rent Control Act is only a protective right and not a vested right, it has been held that when during the pendency of an application for fixation of standard rent, the Act is amended and it ceases to apply to the premises in question, the application is rendered incompetent and has to be dismissed as infructuous.
Orissa High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - M S Raman - Full Document

Sl. Case No vs Wp(C)/34769/2020 Dinabandhu Das ... on 19 September, 2024

(Even pending proceedings will be affected); Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amrit Lal & Co., (2001) 8 SCC 397 : AIR 2001 SC 3580 (pending proceedings will be affected).] Similarly on the reasoning that the right of a tenant to get standard rent fixed and not to pay contractual rent in excess of standard rent under a Rent Control Act is only a protective right and not a vested right, it has been held that when during the pendency of an application for fixation of standard rent, the Act is amended and it ceases to apply to the premises in question, the application is rendered incompetent and has to be dismissed as infructuous.
Orissa High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - M S Raman - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next