Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.67 seconds)The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 105 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Satish Chand Makhan And Others vs Govardhan Das Byas And Others on 27 October, 1998
"11.......... The court is disabled from using the instrument as evidence and
hence it goes out of consideration in this case, hook, line and sinker (vide
Shantabai v. State of Bombay, Satish Chand Makhan v. Govardhan Das
Byas and Bajaj Auto Ltd. V. Behari Lal Kohli)."
Shrimati Shantabai vs State Of Bombay & Others on 24 March, 1958
"11.......... The court is disabled from using the instrument as evidence and
hence it goes out of consideration in this case, hook, line and sinker (vide
Shantabai v. State of Bombay, Satish Chand Makhan v. Govardhan Das
Byas and Bajaj Auto Ltd. V. Behari Lal Kohli)."
Section 17 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Allenburry Engineers Private Ltd vs Ramakrishna Dalmia & Ors on 15 September, 1972
"6. In these circumstances, two questions were sought to be raised by
Mr. Chagla. The first was that there being no dispute between the parties
that the relationship between them was that of landlord and tenant and the
respondents having accepted all along the said rent of Rs. 1800/- a month,
the Court must proceed upon the basis that the occupation of the premises by
the appellant-company was in the capacity as a tenant. According to him, if
the appellant-company, can establish that, that tenancy was for
manufacturing purposes, the presumption laid down in Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act, under which such tenancy has to be regarded as a
tenancy from year to year terminable by a six months' notice and not by a
month's notice, must apply. It is true, said he, that Under Section 107 of the
Act a lease from year to year can be made only by a registered instrument,
but that provision in no way controls the presumption laid down in Section
106 under which once it is proved 'that the parties were in the position of a
landlord and a tenant and the tenancy was for manufacturing purposes, it
24
has to be presumed to be 'one from year to year. According to him, the two
sections are independent of each other, the one dealing with the user and
notice, and the presumption arising from such user, and the other dealing
with compulsory registration for a lease from year to year, or for a term
exceeding one year. Mr. Tarkunde, appearing for the Corporation, on the other
hand, disputed the construction of these two sections suggested by Mr.
Chagla. The second question raised by Mr. Chagla was that in any event the
lease was for manufacturing purposes, and therefore, the said notice was not
valid. Assuming that Mr. Chagla is right in the interpretation of Sections 106
and 107 suggested by him, even then the appellant-company has first to
establish that the lease in its favour was for manufacturing purposes and it
is then only that it can take advantage of the rule of presumption laid down
in Section 106.
Bajaj Auto Limited vs Behari Lal Kohli on 8 August, 1989
"11.......... The court is disabled from using the instrument as evidence and
hence it goes out of consideration in this case, hook, line and sinker (vide
Shantabai v. State of Bombay, Satish Chand Makhan v. Govardhan Das
Byas and Bajaj Auto Ltd. V. Behari Lal Kohli)."
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Anthony vs Kc Ittoop And Sons And Others on 21 July, 2000
The result and effect of all these discussions is that there is no scope for
holding that the appellant is a lessee by virtue of the said unregistered
agreement as felicitously expressed by Justice K.T. Thomas in Anthony
(supra):