Anilkumar Vaikuthlal Patel vs O.L.Of A'Bad Jubili Spinning & Mfg. ... on 26 March, 2020
In support of such
submission the learned counsel placed reliance upon the
decision of the Bombay High Court in N.M. Nayak v.
Chhotalal Hariram (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (2.72 seconds)Documents citing
N.M. Nayak vs Chhotalal Hari Ram And Ors. on 1 February, 1967
The Union Of India , Ministry Of Law And ... vs Maheshkumar G Garodia on 13 February, 2026
In the case of N. M. Nayak Vs. Chhotalal Hariram and others [AIR
1968 Bombay 51 (V 55 C. 11)], it has been held that an assignee of a
lessee has privity estate, but there is no privity of contract between the
assignee of a lessee and lessor. In the case in hand, plaintiffs are the
assignees of the original lessee named Nanabhoy Hirmusjee
Bhiwandiwalla. Considering the said fact, if plaintiffs, who have no privity
of contract with defendants succeed in creating third party interest in the
in the suit suit lands as apprehended by defendants, their right in lands
would be jeopardized. On the contrary, if they are restrained from creating
a third party interest in the suit lands, no prejudice or loss will be caused
to them.
Maheshkumar G. Garodia vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 13 February, 2026
In the case of N. M. Nayak Vs. Chhotalal Hariram and others [AIR
1968 Bombay 51 (V 55 C. 11)], it has been held that an assignee of a
lessee has privity estate, but there is no privity of contract between the
assignee of a lessee and lessor. In the case in hand, plaintiffs are the
assignees of the original lessee named Nanabhoy Hirmusjee
Bhiwandiwalla. Considering the said fact, if plaintiffs, who have no privity
of contract with defendants succeed in creating third party interest in the
in the suit suit lands as apprehended by defendants, their right in lands
would be jeopardized. On the contrary, if they are restrained from creating
a third party interest in the suit lands, no prejudice or loss will be caused
to them.
Maheshkumar G. Garodia vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 13 February, 2026
In the case of N. M. Nayak Vs. Chhotalal Hariram and others [AIR
1968 Bombay 51 (V 55 C. 11)], it has been held that an assignee of a
lessee has privity estate, but there is no privity of contract between the
assignee of a lessee and lessor. In the case in hand, plaintiffs are the
assignees of the original lessee named Nanabhoy Hirmusjee
Bhiwandiwalla. Considering the said fact, if plaintiffs, who have no privity
of contract with defendants succeed in creating third party interest in the
in the suit suit lands as apprehended by defendants, their right in lands
would be jeopardized. On the contrary, if they are restrained from creating
a third party interest in the suit lands, no prejudice or loss will be caused
to them.
Jai Singh Morarji & Ors vs M/S Sovani Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 9 October, 1972
The amendment was introduced into the Act by the Maharashtra
Act No. 17 of 1968 with retrospective effect as from 12 May
1948. The amendment was brought into existence as a result
of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Nayak's case
(supra). The High Court held in that case that a person
seeking to claim protection by the provisions contained in
the notification issued under the proviso to section 15 (1 )
of the Act must establish that his transferor was a lessee
of the premises transferred or assigned. The decision was
to the effect that the only persons who were entitled to
transfer or assign the interest of the premises were to
satisfy the character of a lessee as defined in section 105
of the Transfer of Property Act. The assignee of a lessee
was held not to be a lessee as defined by the Transfer of
Property Act. In this context, the explanation to section
15(1) of the Act as well as sub-clause (aa) in clause (ii)
of section 5 of the Act were introduced to confer protection
on the successive transfer by original lessees in regard to
leases or class of leases notified under the proviso to
section 15(1) of the Act.
Neon Motor Stores And Ors. vs Alliance Stores Trading Co. Ltd. on 6 April, 1973
17. Similarly, the case of N. M. Nayak v. Chhotalal Hariram, 69 Born LR 551 = (AIR 1968 Bom 51), relied upon by Mr. Shah will not help him. In that case it was observed that "A person seeking to claim protection afforded by provisions contained in the notification issued by the State Government under the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, must establish that his transferor was a "lessee" of the premises transferred or assigned. In other words the only persons who are entitled to transfer or assign the interest in the premises must satisfy the character of a "lessee" as defined in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, namely, the transferee of an interest in immovable property. The assignee of a lessee cannot be termed as "lessee" as defined by the Transfer of Property Act."
Josephy Santa Vincent vs Ambico Industries And Ors. on 13 October, 1967
6. The learned Judge's view with regard to the scope of sub-section (2) of Section 15 was upheld by a Division Bench consisting of Mr.Justice Patel and Mr.Justice Thakker in N.M.Nayak v. Chhotalal Hariram, . In that case the tenant of certain premises had assigned his interest in the premises to the petitioner. One of the questions before the court was whether such assignee of an assignee of the leasehold interest was entitled to the protection of sub-section (2) of Section 15. In holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection, the Division Bench observed:
Amrutlal Weljibhai Rathod vs Vishwasrao Deorao Patil on 21 January, 1989
13. So many authorities including N. M. Nayak v. Chhotalal Harrian ; Jal Hirjiv.
1