Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. & Ors vs M.A. Khader (Dead) By Lrs on 17 April, 1986
In case of Ms.General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. V.
M.A.Khader reported in AIR 1986 SC 1218, held in para nos.13
and 14 as under:-
Singer India Limited vs Chander Mohan Chadha & Ors on 13 August, 2004
In case of Singer India Ltd. V. Chander Mohan Chadha
reported in AIR 2004 SC 4368, held in para nos.12 as under:-
U.P.State Industrial Dev.Corpn. Ltd vs Monsanto Mfg. (P) Ltd. & Anr on 29 January, 2015
28. In case of U.P.State Industrial Dev. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Monsanto
Manufacturers (P) Ltd. reported in AIR 2015 SC 1445, held in
para nos.4, 11 and 21 as under:-
Section 10 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Esso (Acquisition Of Undertakings In India) Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
M.R. Venkatarama Aiyar vs The South Indian Bank, Ltd., Through Its ... on 28 October, 1919
14. It has been observed by Subba Rao, J. in
the case of Venkatarama Iyer v. Renters Ltd.,
[1951] II M.L.R. 57 as follows:
Madras Bangalore Transport Co. (West) vs Inder Singh And Ors. on 5 May, 1986
"12. Madras Bangalore Transport Co.
(West) vs. Inder Singh and others 1986(3)
SCC 62 cited by Shri Divan, does not
advance the case of the appellant either as,
here, the Court on the basis of material on
record found as a fact that the Limited
Company was formed with the partners of
the existing tenant firm as Directors and
Page 20 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
both the firm and the company were
operating from the same place, each acting
as agent of the other. It was also found as a
fact that the company was only an 'alter ego'
or a 'corporate reflection' of the tenant firm
and the two were for all practical purposes
having substantial identity and,
consequently, there was no sub-letting,
assignment or parting with possession of the
premises by the firm to the company so as to
attract Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. This case
has been decided purely on facts peculiar to
it and no principle of law has been laid
down.