Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.85 seconds)General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. & Ors vs M.A. Khader (Dead) By Lrs on 17 April, 1986
In view of aforesaid discussions, in my considered
opinion, in view of law laid down in the aforesaid authority titled
as M/s General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M.A.
Khader, AIR 1986 SC 1218, M/s Cox & Kings Ltd. Vs. Smt.
Chander Malhotra, Singer India Ltd. Vs. Chander Mohan
Chadha & Ors., 113( 2004) DLT80 (SC) the amalgamation
amounts to subletting, assigning or parting with the possession of
the suit premises. As in the present case M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate
Pvt. Ltd. who was the tenant in the suit premises was
amalgamated with the respondent in the year 1971 without the
consent of the petitioner, it amounts to subletting, assigning or
parting with the possession of the suit premises. Hence, the
petitioner has proved the ground u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act.
Singer India Limited vs Chander Mohan Chadha & Ors on 13 August, 2004
38. Although, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent has
submitted that authority AIR 1986 SC 1218 relied upon by the Ld.
Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the
present case as case referred in the said authority pertains to A.P.
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act and same is not
under DRC Act. But, in my considered opinion, the ratio of the
said judgment as referred in the said authority is that the
amalgamation of the company which is a tenant under the
landlord with the another company without the written consent of
the landlord amounts to subletting, assigning or parting with the
possession of the suit premises. Apart from this, the facts of the
present case are squarely covered in view of the judgment in 113
(2004) DLT 80 (SC) cited supra.
M/S. Cox & Kings Ltd. & Anr vs Smt.Chander Malhotra on 12 December, 1996
In view of aforesaid discussions, in my considered
opinion, in view of law laid down in the aforesaid authority titled
as M/s General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M.A.
Khader, AIR 1986 SC 1218, M/s Cox & Kings Ltd. Vs. Smt.
Chander Malhotra, Singer India Ltd. Vs. Chander Mohan
Chadha & Ors., 113( 2004) DLT80 (SC) the amalgamation
amounts to subletting, assigning or parting with the possession of
the suit premises. As in the present case M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate
Pvt. Ltd. who was the tenant in the suit premises was
amalgamated with the respondent in the year 1971 without the
consent of the petitioner, it amounts to subletting, assigning or
parting with the possession of the suit premises. Hence, the
petitioner has proved the ground u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act.
J.B. Exports Ltd. And Anr. vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 3 March, 2006
40. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon
the authority titled as Telesound India Ltd. But, the facts of the
said authority is not applicable in the facts of the preset case as in
that case the scheme of amalgamation under Companies Act was
discussed and the amalgamation referring to provisions u/s 14 (1)
The Companies Act, 1956
South Asia Industries Private Ltd vs S. B. Sarup Singh And Others on 18 January, 1965
18. The respondent has also taken a plea that the petitioners
have filed the present petition against M/s Hans Raj Gupta & Co.
Pvt. Ltd. and as such the petitioners have admitted the said M/s
Hansraj Gupta & Co, Pvt. Ltd. to be the tenant in the premises and
15
the petitioners are now estopped from taking a stand that M/s
Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was the tenant in the premises and
had the petitioners treated M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. to
be the tenant in the premises, the name of M/s Delhi Iron
Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. would have found mentioned in the title of the
petition. Again, there is no merit in this contention because if
tenant is ceased to exist, the petition for eviction is maintainable
against a person or a company to whom the property has been
sublet, assigned or parted with possession. It has been held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in South Asia Industries Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. S. Anup Singh that, "Orders for ejectment against all
person in occupation must have been contemplated so that the
landlord might without further trouble recover possession. In such
a case where the tenant assigning the leases becomes extinct, the
court would be fully justified in passing order for recovery of
possession against the assignee alone."