Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.45 seconds)Section 28 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 91 in The Meghalaya Co-operative Societies Act [Entire Act]
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & ... vs Shyam Co Operative Housing Society & Ors on 19 September, 1988
8. On 28th September, 1988 the petitioners filed an application in the trial Court contending that in view of the fact that there was a subsisting agreement between the second petitioner and respondent No. 1, the dispute could not be agitated in its present form under section 91 of the Societies Act. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Apex Court pronounced on 19th
September, 1988 in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and another v. Shyam Co-operative Housing Society & others, . It was, therefore, contended that the dispute under section 91 of the Societies Act was not maintainable and only the Court under section 28 of the Rent Act will have jurisdiction. It may be convenient to reproduce para 4 of the petitioner's application dated 28th September, 1988 which reads as under.
Section 5 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Sanwarmal Kejriwal vs Vishwa Cooperative Housing Society ... on 8 March, 1990
In para 22 of the judgment in Sanwarmal Kejriwal case the Apex Court considered the submissions on behalf of the Society that the appellant before it cannot seek protection against the society as his entry into the flat was in violation of the bye law. The Court rejected the contention in view of the amendment to the Rent Act and said that to hold otherwise would be to carve out an exception to section 15-A of the Rent Act to the effect that the said provisions would not apply to licensees in occupation of a flat owned by the tenant copartnership society. These observations are to be found in para 22 of the judgment at page 1575.