Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.32 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
D.T.T.D.C. vs D.R. Mehra And Sons on 12 March, 1996
In the case of D.T.T.D.C vs. D.R. Mehra & Sons, 62 (1996) DLT 234 (DB), the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that a licencee is, after termination of licence, not
entitled to any injunction against dispossession by the owner.
Sant Lal Jain vs Avtar Singh on 12 March, 1985
In the case of Sant Lal Jain vs. Avtar Singh, A.I.R. 1985 SC 857, it was held
that a licencee cannot set up title in himself in order to avoid surrender of
5 of 9
6
possession of the property on termination of the licence. It was laid down that it is
the duty of such licencee to surrender possession of the property.
G.N. Mehra vs International Airports Authority Of ... on 1 February, 1996
In the case of G.N. Mehra Vs. International Airports Authority of India (IAAI),
63 (1996) DLT 62, it was laid down that after expiry of licence, the licencee is not
entitled to any injunction against the true owner. Grant of such injunction would
amount to perpetuating his unlawful possession.
Thomas Cook (India) Limited vs Hotel Imperial And Ors. on 9 January, 2006
In the case of Thomas Cook Limited Vs. Hotel Imperial & Ors., 127 (2006)
DLT 431, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi took note of a number of other decisions
on the subject including that of Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu, I (2004) SLT
675, and held that a licencee is a permissive occupant. His occupation does not
amount to "possession" and therefore he is not entitled to the grant of injunction
against dispossession.
Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr on 15 December, 2003
In the case of Thomas Cook Limited Vs. Hotel Imperial & Ors., 127 (2006)
DLT 431, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi took note of a number of other decisions
on the subject including that of Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu, I (2004) SLT
675, and held that a licencee is a permissive occupant. His occupation does not
amount to "possession" and therefore he is not entitled to the grant of injunction
against dispossession.
Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs A. Viswam (Dead) By Lrs on 9 February, 1996
In the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. A Vismam, 1996(2) R.R.R. 353,
it was held that a trespasser is not entitled to injunction against dispossession by
the true owner.
S.R. Batra And Anr vs Smt. Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006
In the case of S. R. Batra and another Vs. Smt Taruna Batra Appeal (Civil)
5837 of 2006 decided on 15/12/2006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a
daughterinlaw does not have any legal right to continue in occupation of property
belonging to her parentsinlaw against their consent.
T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
In the case of T. Arivandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 467,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if on a meaningful, not formal, reading of
the plaint if is manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a
8 of 9
9
clear right to sue, the court should reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.