Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.69 seconds)
Ashraf Abdulla vs Union Of India & Anr on 9 March, 2010 cites

Sohan Lal Naraindas vs Laxmidas Raghunath Gadit on 8 January, 1971

18.It is not for the parties to enter into a transaction of one nature and contend that it is of another nature by mere words and conduct more specifically when their conduct is admittedly to camouflage the real transaction. This can be seen from the case of Sohanlal Naraindas Vs. Laxmidas Raghunath Gadit (1963) 68 B.C.R. 400 in which though the parties described their transactions as a licencee, the exclusive possession enjoyed by the transferee led the Court to hold that it was lease as the conditions of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act were complied.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 68 - Full Document

Dipak Banerjee vs Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty on 30 July, 1987

Similarly exclusive possession of the premises with no control thereupon by the tenant was held to be sub-tenancy; Dipak Banerjee Vs. Lilabati ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:41:10 ::: 15 Chakraborty 1987 4 SCC 161 and parting with possession with the right to exclude others by another entity being in control and possession was also held to be subtenancy; M/s. Shalimar Tar Products Ltd., Vs. H.C. Sharma & Ors. A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 145.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 109 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Shalimar Tar Products Ltd vs H.C. Sharma & Ors on 12 November, 1987

Similarly exclusive possession of the premises with no control thereupon by the tenant was held to be sub-tenancy; Dipak Banerjee Vs. Lilabati ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:41:10 ::: 15 Chakraborty 1987 4 SCC 161 and parting with possession with the right to exclude others by another entity being in control and possession was also held to be subtenancy; M/s. Shalimar Tar Products Ltd., Vs. H.C. Sharma & Ors. A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 145.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 156 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1