Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Horological Trades And Agencies And ... on 2 December, 1991 cites

Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs Ashalata S. Guram on 25 September, 1986

"It is apparent from the aforesaid observations that in the facts and circumstances in that case, it was held that licensee was not entitled to protection under section 15-A of the said Act but this Court had made it clear that but for the fact that the licence had been created after the interest of the tenant came to an end, the licensee would have been entitled to protection under section 15-A of the Act." (underlining mine).
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 398 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Ludhichem Agencies Etc vs Ahmed R.V. Peer Mohamed And Anr on 15 September, 1981

4. Mr. Kapadia submits that the Appellate Bench erred in holding that section 15-A of the Rent Act was attracted to the case of the 1st respondent. On the own showing of this respondent, it came on the premises on 24th September, 1966. Even if respondent No. 2 had the power to create a licence that power stood determined when the tenancy of the judgment-debtor was terminated. The law could not countenance the continuance of the licence despite the termination of the tenancy. Consequently, the licence stood in operative as on the date on which the judgment-debtor's tenancy came to an end. That termination was much prior to 1-2-1973, and respondent No. 1 could not avail of protection conferred by section 15-A. There is an element of plausibility in the submission and learned Counsel relies in support of this submission upon certain observations appearing in Ludhichem Agencies v. Ahmed R.V. Peer Mohame), . The observations read as follows:---
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1