Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.95 seconds)Section 60 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Mrs. M. N. Clubwala And Anr vs Fida Hussain Saheb And Ors on 3 February, 1964
On the
other hand, under the Transfer of Property Act, an interest
either limited or unlimited is created in favour of the
transferee depending upon the nature of the transfer (sale,
mortgage or lease, etc.). Under Section 60 [ "60.Licence
when revocable.--A licence may be revoked by grantor,
unless--(a) it is coupled with a transfer of property and
such transfer is in force;(b) the licensee, acting upon the
licence, has executed a work of a permanent character and
incurred expenses in the execution."\ / a licence is revocable
at the will of the grantor which is the essence of a licence.
[M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, AIR 1965 SC 610,
p. 614/ para 120"12. While it is true that the essence of a
licence is that it is revocable at the will of the grantor the
provision in the licence that the licensee would be entitled to
a notice before being required to vacate is not inconsistent
with a licence. In England it has been held that a
contractual licence may be revocable or irrevocable
according to the express or implied terms of the contract
between the parties. It has further been held that if the
licensee under a revocable licence has brought property on
to the land, he is entitled to notice of revocation and to a
Signature Not Verifiedreasonable time for removing his property, and in which to
Digitally Signed Page 25 of 36
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Apr-2024 11:15:18
make arrangements to carry on his business elsewhere.
(See Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 23, p.
Associated Hotels Of India Ltd vs R. N. Kapoor on 19 May, 1959
"43. As rightly pointed out by Shri Nariman, a licence by
definition does not create any interest in the property
[Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor, AIR 1959
SC 1262/ p. 1269/ para 270"27. There is a marked
distinction between a lease and a licence. Section 105 of the
Transfer of Property Act defines a lease of immovable
property as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property made
for a certain time in consideration for a price paid or
promised. Under Section 108 of the said Act, the lessee is
entitled to be put in possession of the property. A lease is
therefore a transfer of an interest in land. The interest
transferred is called the leasehold interest. The lessor parts
with his right to enjoy the property during the term of the
lease, and it follows from it that the lessee gets that right to
the exclusion of the lessor. Whereas Section 52 of the
Easements Act defines a licence thus0'52."Licence"
Sohan Lal Naraindas vs Laxmidas Raghunath Gadit on 8 January, 1971
(iv) It is also apposite to mention herein that, the Bombay High Court in the
judgment that was appealed from in Sohan Lal Naraindas v. Laxmidas
Raghunath Gadit (supra) had observed that even where exclusive
possession of immovable property was transferred for a certain period,
the transaction might amount to a license and not a lease where the
dominant consideration was not the price which the transferee was to
pay for the use and enjoyment of the property. The Bombay High
Court had examined a situation where a railway company may grant
exclusive possession of a separate room at a railway station for
conducting a tea stall for a specified period, and yet the transaction
would amount to a license, as the dominant consideration of the
railway company in such a case is the provision of amenities to railway
passengers, and not the price that may be paid by the transferee for the
enjoyment of the immovable property.
The Indian Easements Act, 1882
Section 105 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 52 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993
(iv) In the case of Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation,13
while drawing parallels with the Indian Constitution, the Apex Court
observed that:
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Others on 18 October, 2000
(iv) The Apex Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India5, has
held that, in the legal realm, courts ought not to assume governmental
duties or functions. While the judiciary plays a crucial role in
interpreting and applying the law, its primary function is to adjudicate
legal disputes and ensure adherence to constitutional principles.
Undertaking governmental responsibilities would not only blur the
lines between branches of government but also risk compromising the
impartiality and independence of the judiciary. The relevant
paragraphs are reproduced hereunder: