Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.35 seconds)Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
S.V. Chandra Pandian And Ors vs S.V. Sivalinga Nadar And Ors on 11 January, 1993
26. Smt. Sruti Chaganti next submits that Sri D.K.
Panduranga has commenced proceedings in HRC
No.516/1991 under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent
Control Act as a 'landlord' of the subject premises because
9 In support of this legal canvass, Smt. Sruti Chaganti relies upon the
decision in S V Chandra Pandian and others v. S V Shivalinga
Nadar reported in (1993)1 SCC 589 and in Sujan Suresh Savant v
Dr.Kamalkant Shantharam Desa reported in 2004 SCC Online Bom.
627
27
under the provisions of such Act a landlord could commence
such proceedings. In this regard, she relies upon the
provisions of section 3 (h) of this enactment. She also further
submits that when a partner initiates proceedings, he
necessarily acts on behalf of the firm as its agent and
therefore, Sri D.K. Panduranga was within his competence as
a partner of the Firm and as a co-owner to initiate the
proceedings under the erstwhile enactment.
Section 109 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
S. Thangappan vs P. Padmavathy on 24 August, 1999
30. There are certain notable exceptions to the
applicability of this doctrine. A useful reference in this regard
could be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
30
in S. Thangappan v. P. Padmavathy11, where it is
reiterated as follows:
Section 116 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Mrs. Sujan Suresh Sawant vs Dr. Kamlakant Shantaram Desa on 22 July, 2004
26. Smt. Sruti Chaganti next submits that Sri D.K.
Panduranga has commenced proceedings in HRC
No.516/1991 under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent
Control Act as a 'landlord' of the subject premises because
9 In support of this legal canvass, Smt. Sruti Chaganti relies upon the
decision in S V Chandra Pandian and others v. S V Shivalinga
Nadar reported in (1993)1 SCC 589 and in Sujan Suresh Savant v
Dr.Kamalkant Shantharam Desa reported in 2004 SCC Online Bom.
627
27
under the provisions of such Act a landlord could commence
such proceedings. In this regard, she relies upon the
provisions of section 3 (h) of this enactment. She also further
submits that when a partner initiates proceedings, he
necessarily acts on behalf of the firm as its agent and
therefore, Sri D.K. Panduranga was within his competence as
a partner of the Firm and as a co-owner to initiate the
proceedings under the erstwhile enactment.
Sri.M.L.Shivakumar vs Sri.N.Annappa on 18 January, 2011
41. As regards the law on whether the carpet area or
the plinth area would be decisive, a useful reference could be
made to the Division Bench judgement of this court in M L
Shiv Kumar v. N Annappa (since deceased} by LRs and
another14. On this specific question, it is held as follows:
B. Chikkanna And Anr. vs Smt. K.M. Jagadamba on 15 September, 2006
35. Smt. Sruti Chaganti further submits that Sri
D.K.Panduranga has indeed commenced proceedings in HRC
No.516/1991 under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent
Control Act, 1961. But with the coming into force of the
Karnataka Rent Act,1999 and because the premises such as
the subject premises are excluded from the applicability of the
aforesaid Act, Sri D.K.Panduranga has filed Memo on
27.01.2003 for leave to withdraw the petition stating that the
subject premises measures more than 14 Sq. Mts. with leave
12 The learned counsel, in this regard, relies upon the decision of this
court in B.Chikkanna and another v. Smt. K M Jagadamba reported
in ILR 2006 Kar 4207.
1