Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.22 seconds)
Smt. Shakuntala vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 May, 2002 cites

Laxmi Khandsari Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 9 March, 1981

7. Admittedly; the contract came to an end on 16.11.99. It is very doubtful as to whether petitioner could retain possession subsequent thereto for the reason that the submission made by Mr. Lodha that once the contractual tenancy came to an end, statutory tenancy came, into existence and the petitioner could be removed only in accordance with law, seems to be preposterous for the reason that petitioner was merely a licensee and not a tenant and the licence came to an end automatically on expiry of its term. Revocation of licence amounts to complete abolition of the right for the exercise of which the licence was granted and it would be tantamount to cancellation for all times to come entailing all vital consequences. (Vide Laxmi Khandsari v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1).
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 97 - S M Ali - Full Document

Rameshwar Proshad Khandelwal & Ors vs Commissioners Land Reforms & Jagirs ... on 13 November, 1958

8. Licence merely gives a right to do something upon the immovable property for the grantee which would, in the absence of any such right, be unlawful but it does not create any right, be unlawful but it does not create any right in favour of the grantee in the property. (Vide Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rameshwar Prosad Khandelwal v. Commissioners, Land Reforms and Jagirs, Madhya Bharat (2); and Puran Singh Sahni v. Sundari Bhagwandas Kripalani (.4).
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 57 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Puran Singh Sahni vs Smt. Sundari Bhagwandas Kripalani And ... on 20 February, 1991

8. Licence merely gives a right to do something upon the immovable property for the grantee which would, in the absence of any such right, be unlawful but it does not create any right, be unlawful but it does not create any right in favour of the grantee in the property. (Vide Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rameshwar Prosad Khandelwal v. Commissioners, Land Reforms and Jagirs, Madhya Bharat (2); and Puran Singh Sahni v. Sundari Bhagwandas Kripalani (.4).
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 56 - K N Saikia - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Bakhshi Amrik Singh on 29 March, 1962

10. Granting of temporary injunction depends upon satisfaction of the ingredients of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, e.g. whether there is a prima facie case in favour of plaintiff, balance of convenience is also in his favour and in case temporary injunction is not granted, plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss. First ingredient may not be there, as the licensee does not seem to have a right to maintain a suit for injunction, as such suits seem to be barred by the provisions of Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act, 1.963") and in such a case, petitioner, if was aggrieved, could claim only damages measurable by the extent of emoluments, of which she had been unjustly deprived of. In a case where injunction cannot be granted, the question of granting temporary injunction does not arise. This view may stand fortified by a large number of judgments, including Union of India v. Bakshi Amrik Singh (4); Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Hindustan Brown Bowery Ltd. (5); and Smt. Ajmer Kaur v. Punjab State (6).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Rajasthan State Electricity Board, ... vs Hindustan Brown Boveri Ltd., Bombay on 11 October, 1968

10. Granting of temporary injunction depends upon satisfaction of the ingredients of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, e.g. whether there is a prima facie case in favour of plaintiff, balance of convenience is also in his favour and in case temporary injunction is not granted, plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss. First ingredient may not be there, as the licensee does not seem to have a right to maintain a suit for injunction, as such suits seem to be barred by the provisions of Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act, 1.963") and in such a case, petitioner, if was aggrieved, could claim only damages measurable by the extent of emoluments, of which she had been unjustly deprived of. In a case where injunction cannot be granted, the question of granting temporary injunction does not arise. This view may stand fortified by a large number of judgments, including Union of India v. Bakshi Amrik Singh (4); Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Hindustan Brown Bowery Ltd. (5); and Smt. Ajmer Kaur v. Punjab State (6).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Chandu Lal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 November, 1977

14. A Full Bench of Delhi High Court, in Chandu Lal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (9), dealt with a similar case and held that "before invoking the jurisdiction of the Court to seek temporary injunction, the petitioners were bound to show that they have the legal right and that there was an invasion of that right." As the licensee cannot ask for temporary injunction if the licence period is over, or it has been determined.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 74 - Y Dayal - Full Document

Ms. Vijay Kumari Magee vs Smt. S.M. Rao And Others on 11 January, 1996

In Vijay Kumar Magee v. S.M. Rao and Ors. (11), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a criminal case, considering whether locking the premises after revoking the licence of the licensee and leaving the licensee inside the premises would amount to wrongful restraint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered that as the Civil Court had refused to grant injunction in favour of the licensee and the appellate Court had considered her to be a trespasser, putting in a lock on the premises by the licensor would not amount to wrongful restraint because after termination of the licence, the licensee had no right to continue in possession.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - B L Hansaria - Full Document

Corporation Of The City Of Bangalore vs M. Papaiah And Anr. on 1 August, 1989

18. Mr. L.M. Lodha, learned counsel for petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. N. Papaiah and Anr. (13). However, he facts of that case are distinguishable as in that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court was deciding the second appeal wherein the title of the agricultural land was in dispute and a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendant Corporation from interfering with the possession over the land in dispute was asked. Thus, the aforesaid judgment has no bearing in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 154 - Full Document

Shiv Shankar And Ors. vs Board Of Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. And ... on 15 November, 1993

22. It is settled law that no litigant can derive any benefit because of pendency of case in a Court of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and if the case is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified, automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of its own wrongs by getting interim order and thereafter blame the Court. The fact that the suit is found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, shows that a frivolous suit has been instituted. The legal maxim Actus Curie neminem gravabit is applicable in such a case, which means that the act of the court shall prejudice no one. In such a situation, the Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the Court. Thus, any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralised as institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a suitor from delayed action by the act of the Court where the interim order stood merged in the final order. (Vide Grindleys Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Commissioner (15), Ram Kishan Verma v. State of U.P. (16); Dr. A.K. Sircar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (17); Shiv Shankar and Ors. v. Board of Directors, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. (18); Kannoriya Chemicals and Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board (19); Ugam Singh v. State of Raj. and Ors. (20); the Committee of Management, Arya Inter College v. Shree Kumar Tiwari (21); and G.T.C. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (22).
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 113 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next