Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)Section 5 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Burmah Shell (Acquisition Of Undertakings In India) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Burmah Shell (Acquisition Of Undertakings In India) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Burmah Shell (Acquisition Of Undertakings In India) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
P. Sankaranarayanan Nambiar And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 August, 1989
12. Learned Counsel for the appellant also drew my attention to the following passage in P. Sankaranarayanan Nambiar v. Union of India (:--
The Esso (Acquisition Of Undertakings In India) Act, 1974
Trade Centre Developers And Builders ... vs Union Of India And Anr. on 13 March, 1984
11. No doubt, learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the following passage in Trade Centre D. and B. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India :--
Rasiklal M. Mehta And Anr. vs The Hindustan Photo Films ... on 25 July, 1975
But, a bare exercise of option for renewal could not be of any avail to the defendant, because the law is well settled that a covenant for renewal contained in a lease does not ipso facto extend the tenure or term of the lease, but only entitles the lessee to obtain a fresh lease. If there is a clause for renewal in the original lease, and that clause has been
taken advantage of and any option pursuant thereto has been properly exercised, it only gives a lever for the lessee to obtain new lease in accordance with and in due satisfaction of the law governing the making of leases. If to the renewal lease, the requirements of the first part of S. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act are attracted, as obviously are in the present case, no valid lease would come into existence unless the said requirements are satisfied. So far as present case is concerned, even if the defendant is stated to have exercised its option for renewal, which position we have accepted, it has not improved the lot of the defendant to say that there had been a renewed lease, which had enured in its favour, because admittedly the requirements of S. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act were not satisfied. The proposition of law has been clearly recapitulated by Ismail, J., as he then was, after tracing the authorities on the subject in R. M. Mehta v. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Company, (1976 (1) Mad LJ 115 : (AIR 1976 Mad 194)".