Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.45 seconds)Section 63 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
M/S Haliburton Offshore Services Inc. vs Vedanta Limited & Anr. on 29 May, 2020
130. Therefore, the continuance of Defendants in the suit property
during period of Force Majeure as defined in Clause III. 5 of the Lease
Deed and not paying the rent is protected under Clause III. 5 of the Lease
Deed and therefore, the issuance of legal notice dated 17.08.2020 for
eviction and payment of outstanding lease rentals by the Plaintiff to
Defendants is invalid since the same was issued in violation of Clause III.
5 of Lease Deed. Similar was the response/submission of Defendants in
their reply dated 01.09.2020 to the legal notice dated 17.08.2020 sent by
Plaintiff. Therefore, the tenancy in favour of Defendants continued till
expiry of Lease Deed i.e. 26.07.2021, since Lease Deed commenced from
26.07.2012. The submissions of Plaintiff in rejoinder that payment of
lease rental is not contingent upon the health of the business operating
from the subject property and inability to perform business in a routine
manner that arises due to events like lockdown order is primarily in the
nature of a business risk undertaken by the Defendants which has to be
borne by them and/or Commercial hardship/onerous condition is no
NEERA
CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 63 of 78 BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2026.04.27
18:36:14 +0530
ground to not to perform the obligations under the Lease Deed are devoid
of merits in view of observations made in respect of Clause III. 5 of Lease
Deed read with observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter
of M/S Haliburton Offshore Services Inc. vs Vedanta Limited & Anr.,
O.M.P (I) (COMM.) No. 88/2020 on 29 May, 2020 which are reproduced
below:
Section 10 in The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
The Disaster Management Act, 2005
Raja Himanshudhar Singh vs Ram Hitkari And Ors. on 29 March, 1963
and Raja Himanshudhar Singh v. Sri Ram Hitkari &
Ors., 1963 SCC OnLine All 35 is unfounded and observations made in
these judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
M/S Mehra Jewels Palace Pvt Ltd vs M/S Miniso Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 11 September, 2020
50. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mehra
Jewel Palace vs. Miniso Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. bearing no.
CS(COMM) 376/2020 dated 25.05.2022 in the similar factual
situation observed that the benefit of Force Majeure would enure
to the Defendant/ tenant for the month of April,2020 and May,
2020 and the contention of the Plaintiff that as per the Clause the
payment of rent could only be delayed or postponed but not
waived, was rejected.
Smt. Sunder Bai And Ors. vs Nonit Ram on 4 July, 2002
136. Hon'ble High Court would not have dismissed CM (M) 4045/2024
vide order dated 21.05.2025 if the rejection of counterclaim of
Defendants would have been a bar to adjudication of question with
respect to mesne profits and rental. Therefore, the reliance of Plaintiff on
law laid down in Sunder Bai and Ors. v. Monit Ram, [2003 (5) M.P.L.J.
158], Ramji @ Rama Narayan Ghuge v. Ratan Waghu Bhujbal & Ors.,
[1989 Mh.L.J.]