Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
K.C. Bhaskaran Nair vs Carona Shoe Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 21 October, 1986 cites

Asa Ram And Another vs Mst. Ram Kali And Another on 21 November, 1957

Two earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, Harihar Prasad v. Deo Narain Prasad, AIR 1956 SC 305 and Asa Ram v. Mst. Ram Kali, AIR 1958 SC 183, were accepted in that decision as clear authorities for the position that Section 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act enacts an exception to the general rule that a person cannot confer on another any right higher than what he himself possesses and if the lease is one which could have been made by the owner in the course of prudent management, it would be binding on the mortgagors, notwithstanding that the mortgage has been redeemed. That decision proceeded on the assumption that the two Supreme Court decisions relied on therein were applicable to both agricultural and non-agricultural lands in urban area.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 49 - Full Document

All India Film Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs Shri Raja Gyan Nath And Ors on 26 September, 1969

6. But there is a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Sachalmal Parasram v. Ratanbai, AIR 1972 SC 637 following All India Film Corporation Ltd. v. Raja Gyannath, (1969) 3 SCC 79 and distinguishing two still earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Mahabir Gopa v. Harbans Narain Singh, AIR 1952 SC 205 and Asaram v. Mst. Ram Kali. AIR 1958 SC 183. That was a case in which the mortgage deed specifically authorised the mortgagee to let out the shop. In that case the claim was under that agreement as well as under Section 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. Consequently protection under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was also relied on. Referring to the earlier decisions it was said that the relationship of lessor and lessee cannot subsist beyond the mortgagee's interest unless the relationship is agreed to by the mortgagor or a fresh relationship is recreated. This the mortgagor or the person succeeding to the mortgagor's interest may elect to do. It was also held that if he does not the assessee cannot claim any rights beyond the term of his original lessor's interest. That decision is also authority for the position that the provisions of Section 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act which is an exception to the general rule embodied in Section 111(c) applies in appropriate cases ordinarily only to the management of agricultural lands and has seldom been extended to urban property so as to tie it up in the hands of lessees or to confer on them rights under special statutes.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 50 - Full Document

Mahabir Gope And Others vs Harbans Narain Singh And Others on 14 April, 1952

6. But there is a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Sachalmal Parasram v. Ratanbai, AIR 1972 SC 637 following All India Film Corporation Ltd. v. Raja Gyannath, (1969) 3 SCC 79 and distinguishing two still earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Mahabir Gopa v. Harbans Narain Singh, AIR 1952 SC 205 and Asaram v. Mst. Ram Kali. AIR 1958 SC 183. That was a case in which the mortgage deed specifically authorised the mortgagee to let out the shop. In that case the claim was under that agreement as well as under Section 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. Consequently protection under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was also relied on. Referring to the earlier decisions it was said that the relationship of lessor and lessee cannot subsist beyond the mortgagee's interest unless the relationship is agreed to by the mortgagor or a fresh relationship is recreated. This the mortgagor or the person succeeding to the mortgagor's interest may elect to do. It was also held that if he does not the assessee cannot claim any rights beyond the term of his original lessor's interest. That decision is also authority for the position that the provisions of Section 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act which is an exception to the general rule embodied in Section 111(c) applies in appropriate cases ordinarily only to the management of agricultural lands and has seldom been extended to urban property so as to tie it up in the hands of lessees or to confer on them rights under special statutes.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 81 - N C Aiyar - Full Document

Jagadguru Gurushiddaswami vs Dakshina Maharashtra Digambarjain ... on 14 October, 1953

Gurushiddaswami v. DMD, Jain Sabha AIR 1953 SC 514 and Rupchand v. Raghuvanshi (Pvt) Ltd., AIR 1964 SC 1889 were relied on in support of that contention. In both those cases it was held that a sub-lessee would be bound by a decree for possession passed against the lessee even if the sub-lessee is not a party to the suit. But the decision said that it is difficult to apply the reasoning to the case of a lessee from a mortgagee. In that case a finding was called for from the District Judge and the finding was that the lease in favour of the appellant was granted by the mortgagee in the ordinary course of management and it would be binding on the mortgagor even after the mortgage is redeemed. That finding was accepted by the Division Bench and it was held that the contention that the decree-holder is entitled to execute the decree against the appellant who was not a party to the compromise decree must fail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document
1