Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)Section 51 in The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta And Ors. vs Vasant Dhanaji Patil And Ors. on 8 January, 1992
In fact this controversy has been resolved by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta and others v. Vasant Dhanaji Patil and others, . Mr. Salunkhe and Mr. Kadam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents referred me to that judgment which considers the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this High Court on this point and holds that the trustee is the legal owner of the property and enjoys all the rights inherent in a natural owner of property and can sue to recover trust property. Section 50 cannot apply as a bar to the substantive right of the trustee to institute suit. No permission under section 51 is necessary in such a case. In view of the above clear position, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court was right in taking the view that the suit was maintainable and the consent of the Charity Commissioner was not necessary as a condition precedent.
Jugal Kishore Kundu (Deceased By ... vs Narayan Chandra Kundu And Anr. on 2 February, 1982
Mr. Salunkhe also relied upon the judgments of Calcutta and Patna High Courts reported in Mohini Mohan Dawn v. Srischandra Hati, , Jugal Kishor Kundu v. Narayan Chandra Kundu, and, Shaikh Abdul Sattan v. Bipi Rahazani and others, which are to the same effect.
Varisalli Mohammed Ilias vs Abdul Sattar Gulam Hussein (Since ... on 6 August, 1991
16. Mr. Salunkhe and Mr. Kadam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 countered this submission by pointing out that for an arrangement to constitute a license, three ingredients were necessary, viz. (i) person must be in possession of the premises concerned: (ii) that must be by virtue of an agreement and (iii) there ought to be some fee or payment for that occupation. As far as the protection under the Rent Act is concerned, what was required was that firstly, the premises concerned ought to be a room, secondly, the person must be in possession on 1st day of February 1973 and thirdly the possession must be that of a licensee. Mr. Salunkhe relied upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case Varisalli v. Abdul Sattar, in this behalf. Mr. Salunkhe submitted that in the present case, undoubtedly the original defendant No. 2 was in occupation of only apart of the shed. The portion in his occupation could not be said to be a room. Besides, his occupation could not be said to be that of a licensee in as much as there was neither a proof of any agreement nor that of payment.
Siddu Venkappa Devadiga vs Smt. Rangu S. Devadiga And Ors. on 6 January, 1977
18. Mr. Salunkhe referred me to a number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts on the question of variance in pleadings and evidence. Firstly he referred to the judgment in the case of Siddu Venkappa Devadiga v. Smt. Rangu S. Devadiga and others, wherein the Court held that it is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the plead of the
parties and that it is the case pleaded which has to be found.
Vinod Kumar Arora vs Smt. Surjit Kaur on 17 July, 1987
Similarly, in Vinod Kumar Arora v. Smt. Surjit Kaur, while dealing with variance between pleadings and proof (Order 6, Rule 2 of the C.P.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the pleadings of the parties form the foundation of their case and it is not open to them to give up the case set out in the pleadings and propound a new and different case.
Keshavrao Girjuba Singare vs Chandrabhan Bhojaji Singare on 28 January, 1980
The same view is taken by a Single Judge of this Court in Kesharvrao Girjuba Singare v. Chandrabhan Bhojaji Singare, . In that case, the story narrated by the defendant in his own testimony was totally different from the contentions raised in his written statement and that led to rejection of the defendant's contention with respect to allegation of fraud, misrepresentation etc.