Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
State Of Maharashtra vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr on 28 July, 1982
(underlining added)
4(i) A reading of the aforesaid paras, and more particularly para 11
shows that the fact that the respondent-society is running an eye hospital at
the suit premises for public welfare as a charitable institution has not been
denied or disputed by the present petitioner. Because of the fact that there is
no dispute that the respondent-society is running an eye hospital and it is
engaged in public welfare as a charitable institution was not denied that the
most of the discussion in the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller
pertains to the availability of the accommodation that whether the
C.M.(M) No.900/2014 Page 6 of 13
respondent-society requires the accommodation with the petitioner for its
activities or not. This I am observing so because before this Court learned
senior counsel for the petitioner has sought to argue that the respondent-
society is not carrying on any activity of running an eye hospital for public
welfare as a charitable institution. I cannot allow such an argument to be
raised in view of the specific admission of the petitioner as recorded in para
11 of the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller and which judicial
record has to be taken as final in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr.
AIR 1982 SC 1249 which holds that courts have to take as final what is
recorded in judicial proceedings and if what is factually recorded in a
judicial order is not correct, then, the person who states that the factual
statement is incorrectly recorded in the order must move to that court which
recorded that factual statement at the earliest stage when the matter is fresh
in the mind of the court, and if that is not done, the matter rests there and
thereafter such a factual statement made in the judgment of the lower court
cannot be challenged in an appeal filed in the appellate court.
Section 39 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Societies Registration Act, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Birdhi Chand Jain Charitable Trust vs Kanhaiya Lal Sham Lal on 4 September, 1972
However, even if I consider these judgments it is found that in the judgment
in the case of Birdhi Chand Jain Charitable (supra) there was the position
emerging on record that the alleged trust had never carried out any charitable
activity and therefore it was held that the public trust was not a public
institution as envisaged under Section 22 of the Act.
M.D. Oswal Hosiery vs Swami Krishna Nand Govinda Nand Bhagwat ... on 2 December, 1980
6. The judgment which is relied upon on behalf of the petitioner in
the case of M.D. Oswal Hosiery (supra) is only to show that the judgment
in the case of Birdhi Chand Jain Charitable (supra) has been followed in
the case of M.D. Oswal Hosiery (supra). There is however no dispute to the
legal proposition that the landlord must be a public institution before it
invokes Section 22 of the Act, but, the issue is not a legal issue in the present
case but is actually a factual issue and which factual issue, as already stated
above, has been admitted on behalf of the petitioner as recorded in para 11
of the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller.
1