Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.68 seconds)
Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By Lrs vs Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors on 8 April, 1987 cites

Shankar Gopinath Apte vs Gangabai Hariharrao Patwardhan on 25 August, 1976

In Shanker Gopinath Apte v. Gangabhai Hariharrao Patwardhan the plaintiff had raised plea of tenancy failing which he claimed to be in possession of the land, in part performance of an agreement for sale. On the rejection of both the pleas the plaintiff-appellant therein raised a further plea that he was protected under section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act as he had executed works of permanent character on the land incurring heavy expenses. This Court rejected the submissions on the ground of absence of pleadings, issues and evidence. While rejecting the appellant's submissions the Court observed that even assum- ing that the appellant had executed work of a permanent character on the land it could not be said that he had done so "acting upon the license" as required by Section 60(b) of the Easements Act. The Court observed that the appellant improved the land by executing work c-f a permanent charac- ter, he did so, in the belief that being a tenant he would become statutory purchaser of the land or that the oral agreement of sale will one fine day be implemented. The execution of the work was done either in the capacity as a tenant or as a prospective purchaser but not as a licensee. The decision has no application to the facts of the present case as admittedly the school was a licensee and in that capacity it executed works of a permanent character, by incurring expenses and this plea was raised at the initial stage before the trial court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 19 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Muhammad Ziaul Haque vs Standard Vacuum Oil Company on 2 December, 1950

In Muhammad Ziaul Hague v. Standard Vacuum Oil Company, 55 Calcutta Weekly Notes 232 the Calcut- ta High Court held that where a license is prima facie irrevocable either because it is coupled with a grant or interest or because the licensee erected the work of perma- nent nature there is nothing to prevent the parties from agreeing expressly or by necessary implication that licence nevertheless shall be revocable. On the same reasoning there is nothing to prevent the parties agreeing expressly or im- pliedly that the license which may not prima facie fall within either of the two categories of license (as contem- plated by section 60) should nevertheless be irrevocable.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1   2 Next