Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)
Shamamma And Anr. vs Ramachander Rao And Ors. on 12 October, 1973 cites

N. S. Shethna vs Vinubhai Harilal Panchal on 25 August, 1966

"The rules relating to the licence for sale of tickets provide as aforesaid that the maximum period for which such a licence can be issued is one year. Renewal of a licence is provided for but only indirectly and in a sort of an offhand manner by Cl. 4 of form F, It appears therefrom that a licence has to produce his licence, pay the renewal fee and get entries made on its reserve as to the date of renewal, the period upto which it would be valid on such renewal and the fees having been paid therefor. Since the rules do not provide as to how much are the fees for renewal it must be presumed that the fees are the same as for the licence itself. It is clear from the rules that they do not contain anything to show that the renewed licence is a continuation of the licence previously issued except the fact that the authority has to make the said entries on the reverse of the licence. The fact that the Rules do not make any provision for the power to renew, the procedure for renewal and for its fees as is done in Chapter VII in the case of a cinema licence is an indication that the draftsman equated renewal of a licence with the issuance of a licence. It may also be observed that it is not as if renewal is automatic nor is it to be granted as a matter of course. If the licensing authority desires to impose any fresh conditions there is nothing in the rules to prevent him from doing so. That being so a renewal cannot, unless the context requires, otherwise, be regarded as a continuation of the licence previously issued. There is also nothing in Chapter VIII or in Form F indicating that the renewal is such a continuation." It appears to us that the rules framed under the Money Lenders Act also stand on a par with the rules in the above case and as such whenever a licence is granted, either by way of original grant or by way of renewal, it should be deemed to be a new licence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 16 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Kaloji Talusappa Gangavathi vs Khyanagouda And Ors. on 9 April, 1970

14. It was held by the their Lordships of the Supreme Court interpreting Section 9 of this Act, in Kaloji Talusappa v. Khyanagounda, , that where the plaintiff had no licence the court was bound to dismiss the suit. In that case the mortgage transaction was on 20-6-1969 and the promissory note was executed on 22-9-1956. On both the dates the plaintiff had no licence obtained under this Act. The suit was dismissed and the decision was confirmed in appeal. Their Lordships also confirmed the said view upholding the object of the Act as follows:---
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 16 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next