Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.42 seconds)
Omprakash S/O Shamraoji Pokale vs Shriram Gaushala Through Its Managing ... on 30 September, 2016 cites

Sitaram Deoba Maratha vs Hawadva Piraji Naobudha And Ors. on 4 March, 1975

[c] That, as the vesting of title was complete on the tiller's day, the title of the tenant was not defeasible. He submitted that failure to make any application by the tenant for determination of purchase price would not defeat the right of a tenant. So also, the landlord could not apply under provisions of Section 120 of the said Act on the basis of deemed surrender of tenancy under Section 20 of the said Act. It was further urged by the learned Senior Counsel that the Judgment of learned Single Judge in Vidarbha Maharogi Seva Mandal Vs. Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and others [2016 (3) ABR 615] did not consider the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in Sitaram Deoba Marathe Vs. Hawadya Piraji & others [1975 Mh. L.J. 521 ] in the right perspective. It was urged that the legal position as enunciated by the Division Bench was not correctly applied by the learned Single Judge.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Vidarbha Maharogi Seva Mandal, Tapovan ... vs The Member, Maharashtra Revenue ... on 23 February, 2016

[c] That, as the vesting of title was complete on the tiller's day, the title of the tenant was not defeasible. He submitted that failure to make any application by the tenant for determination of purchase price would not defeat the right of a tenant. So also, the landlord could not apply under provisions of Section 120 of the said Act on the basis of deemed surrender of tenancy under Section 20 of the said Act. It was further urged by the learned Senior Counsel that the Judgment of learned Single Judge in Vidarbha Maharogi Seva Mandal Vs. Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and others [2016 (3) ABR 615] did not consider the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in Sitaram Deoba Marathe Vs. Hawadya Piraji & others [1975 Mh. L.J. 521 ] in the right perspective. It was urged that the legal position as enunciated by the Division Bench was not correctly applied by the learned Single Judge.
Bombay High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 3 - R K Deshpande - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next