Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Dilip Murlidhar Lodiya vs Mohd. Azizul Haq Mohd. Abdul Haq on 8 February, 1989

Subhash Joshi And Anr. vs Mohd. Sultan S/O Abdul Gani And Anr. on 19 December, 2005

Thus, the provisions in both these Acts are pari materia and interpretation on words "relating to the recovery of possession" in Section 41(1) applies with full vigour to Section 26(1) of Act. The provisions of Act quoted above leave no manner of doubt that an exclusive forum and procedure has been prescribed for ventilation of all grievances between landlord and tenants or licensors and licensees, as the case may be. The Section 26(1) opens with non obstante clause which needs to be given full effect. Clause 17 in Schedule II of the Act would be superfluous if Section 7 of Civil Procedure Code alone is held to bar jurisdiction of Small Cause Court to grant injunction in landlord/tenant and licensee/licensor matters. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) was not available then and the other rulings considered therein have not been brought to the notice of this Court when it decided Dilip Murlidhar Lohiya v. Mohd. Azizul Haq Court reported at 1990 Mh.L.J. 249 : AIR 1990 Bombay 228. In view of subsequent rulings of Hon'ble Apex Court squarely on the point, reliance upon it by learned Advocate Deopujari for petitioners is totally misconceived.
Bombay High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Anupama Ranjit Patil And Others vs Bhalchandra Onkar Patil And Another on 15 December, 2020

16. True it is that in the case of Dilip Lohiya (supra) the proposed amendment seeking injunction which was contrary to the specific bar contained under Section 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, was refused. But when admittedly, the amendment has already been carried out and even the matter has proceeded further wherein the written statement has also been filed, it would not be proper to decide the issue as to the jurisdiction in this Writ Petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M S Patil - Full Document

Ram Autar Yadav vs Daya Nand Swarup Pandey on 28 July, 2011

10. I am afraid to say that the said authority is not applicable in the present matter. The case of Dilip Murlidhar Lohiya (supra) relates to State of Maharastra wherein by way of amendment Section 26 of the Act was added which provided that suits or proceedings between licensors and licensees or landlords and tenants for recovery of possession of the immovable property and the licensee fee of rent, except those to which other Acts apply, to lie in Court of Small Causes. I am constrained to say that such amendment by the State of Maharashtra has not been made applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, suits against the licensee cannot be filed in the court of small causes in State of Uttar Pradesh wherein no such corresponding amendment has been made under the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S K Gupta - Full Document

Dr. Juggan @ Shafique Ahmad vs Sachchida Nand Swarup Pandey on 28 July, 2011

10. I am afraid to say that the said authority is not applicable in the present matter. The case of Dilip Murlidhar Lohiya (supra) relates to State of Maharastra wherein by way of amendment Section 26 of the Act was added which provided that suits or proceedings between licensors and licensees or landlords and tenants for recovery of possession of the immovable property and the licensee fee of rent, except those to which other Acts apply, to lie in Court of Small Causes. I am constrained to say that such amendment by the State of Maharashtra has not been made applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, suits against the licensee cannot be filed in the court of small causes in State of Uttar Pradesh wherein no such corresponding amendment has been made under the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S K Gupta - Full Document

Vasudeo Tulsiram Jambhale vs Raghuvir Singh S/O Umedh Thakur And Anr. on 9 March, 2001

9. Now, it is contended by Shri J. T. Gilda, the learned Counsel for the review-applicant, that the Division Bench of this Court struck down aforesaid amendments by its judgment in Mohammad Azizul Haq v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 7995 Mh.LJ. 382 which was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide its judgment in Dilip Murlidhar Lohiya v. Mohd. Azizul Haq and Anr. reported in 1994 Mh.L.J. 1334 set aside the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and by allowing the appeal remanded the matter to this Court with a request to decide the important question, namely, the applicability of Sub-clause (4-A) of Clause 2 and Clause 13-A to the facts of the said case in the first instance before deciding the vires of the aforesaid amendments. According to Shri Gilda, thereafter the Division Bench of this Court while considering the aforesaid amendments held that the said amendments are not retrospective but prospective.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S D Gundewar - Full Document
1