Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 501 (1.42 seconds)
Documents citing Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs Ashalata S. Guram on 25 September, 1986

Cadell Weaving Mill Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 September, 1995

After going through the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court as well as Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, AIR 1987 SC 117, we find that the ratio of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court on the first of the points posed before it which deals with the question whether the statutory tenant governed by the Bombay Rent Act retains transferable interest in the tenanted premises or not, was not disturbed, and, therefore, in our opinion, the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court on that aspect of the matter should be taken to have become final.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 78 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Mani Nariman Daruwala Alias Bharucha ... vs Phiroz N. Bhatena And Ors. on 30 April, 1991

16. Was the High Court justified in taking this view and in upsetting the finding recorded by the Appellate Bench? While considering this question it has to be borne in mind that the High Court was exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the exercise of this jurisdiction the High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact of an inferior court or tribunal if there was no evidence to justify such a conclusion and if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the court or tribunal who has come or in other words it is a finding which was perverse in law. Except to the limited extent indicated above the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact (See: Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram (supra)} Applying these test were are unable to persuade ourselves to hold that the findings recorded by the Appellate Bench suffer from such an infirmity so as to justify interference with the said finding under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 63 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs A.Beevi Kannu on 19 September, 2014

In Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram this Court stated that: (SCC pp. 477-78, para 67) "67. ... the expression `notwithstanding anything contained in this Act.... is more often than not appended to a section in the beginning with a view to give the enacting part of the section in case of conflict an overriding effect over the provision of the Act or the contract mentioned in the non obstante clause. It is equivalent to saying that in spite of the provision of the Act or any other Act mentioned in the non obstante clause ... the enactment following it will have its full operation...."
Kerala High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 4 - A Shaffique - Full Document

Lcc Projects Pvt. Ltd vs Madhya Pradesh Jal Nigam Maryadit on 24 March, 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26012 8 AR-69-2025 (Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re case [Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1] , SCC p. 61, para 83) "83. .... '67. A clause beginning with the expression 'notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in some particular provision in the Act or in some particular Act or in any law for the time being in force, or in any contract' is more often than not appended to a section in the beginning with a view to give the enacting part of the section in case of conflict an overriding effect over the provision of the Act or the contract mentioned in the non obstante clause. It is equivalent to saying that in spite of the provision of the Act or any other Act mentioned in the non obstante clause or any contract or document mentioned the enactment following it will have its full operation or that the provisions embraced in the non obstante clause would not be an impediment for an operation of the enactment.' [ As observed in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447, at pp. 477-78, para 67.] "
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V Rusia - Full Document

S.H. Karkhanis vs Lalita W/O Madhusudan Govind Bhat And ... on 13 April, 1989

10. Section 15-A(1) provides that notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Act or anything contrary in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract, where any person is on the 1st day of February 1973 in occupation of any premises, or any part thereof which is not less than a room, as a licensee he shall on that date be deemed to have become, for the purposes of this Act, the tenant of the landlord, in respect of the premises or part thereof, in his occupation. The amplitude of the language and the non-obstante clause unmistakenly indicate that the intendment in enacting the said provision was to give full protection to any licensee who was occupying on February 1, 1973, the premises. Indeed, the use of the expression, "any person who is on February 1, 1973 in occupation of any premises" points out that the protection was afforded to any licensee occupying the premises on that particular date, being, therefore, irrelevant whether his licensor was the landlord or the tenant; and the use of the non-obstante clause gives overriding effect to it making, therefore, full protection available. It is thus undisputable that if a tenant has created a licence in respect of the premises let out to him and if such licence was subsisting on February 1, 1973 the licensee will come within the purview of section 15-A and will be a deemed tenant of his licensor in respect of the said premises. This will be so, even in the event the licensor was not a contractual tenant but merely a statutory tenant, for as held by the supreme Court in Chandavarkar's case (supra) until a decree of eviction is passed against the tenant, a tenant protected by a stature, is entitled to create a licence which is merely a personal right and not any interest in the property.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Swarnamma Rebecca vs The District Supply Officer on 27 January, 2020

In Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram this Court stated that: (SCC pp. 477-78, para 67) "67. ... the expression 'notwithstanding anything contained in this Act.... is more often than not appended to a section in the beginning with a view to give the enacting part of the section in case of conflict an overriding effect over the provision of the Act or the contract mentioned in the non obstante clause. It is equivalent to saying that in spite of the provision of the Act or any other Act mentioned in the non obstante clause ... the enactment following it will have its full operation...."
Kerala High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. vs Avanindra Upadhyay on 6 April, 2026

It may be noticed that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, reported as (1986)4 SCC 447, the licence is not an interest in property. It is purely a personal right. Therefore, in the absence of contract to the contrary, the legal heirs are not entitled to continue in possession after the death of the licensee. Therefore, the condition that license will not be heritable cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Still further, the effect of not transferring the license in favour of the legal heirs is that the legal heirs have to compete along with other eligible candidates for grant of license on such license fee which may be prevalent on the date of grant of the license. Mere fact that he happens to be the legal heir of the deceased licensee does not confer any preferential right to continue with the permissive possession.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V Rusia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next