Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.34 seconds)Section 38 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000
In Kunhayammed & Ors. (supra), this Court, on an
elaborate discussion of the available authorities, held that once
the superior Court has disposed of the lis before it either way,
i.e. whether the decree or order under appeal is set aside or
modified or simply confirmed, it is the decree or order of the
superior Court, Tribunal or authority which is the final, binding
and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or
order passed by the court, tribunal or the authority below.
However, this Court has also observed that the doctrine of
merger is not of universal or unlimited application. In spite of
merger the actual fact would remain that it was the decree or
order appealed against which had directed the termination of
tenancy with effect from which date the tenant had ceased to be
the tenant, and the obligation of the tenant to deliver possession
over the tenancy premises came into operation though the same
remained suspended because of the order of stay.
M/S. Marshall Sons & Co.(I) Ltd vs M/S.Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. And Anr on 29 January, 1999
In Marshall Sons & Co.
(I) Ltd. Vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. & Anr., (1999) 2 SCC
325, this Court has held that once a decree for possession has
been passed and execution is delayed depriving the judgment-
creditor of the fruits of decree, it is necessary for the Court to
pass appropriate orders so that reasonable mesne profits which
may be equivalent to the market rent is paid by a person who is
holding over the property.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 111 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 13 October, 2003
In South
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., (2003) 8
SCC 648, this Court while dealing with interim orders granted in
favour of any party to litigation for the purpose of extending
protection to it, effective during the pendency of the
proceedings, has held that such interim orders, passed at an
interim stage, stand reversed in the event of the final decision
going against the party successful in securing interim orders in
its favour; and the successful party at the end would be justified
in demanding compensation and being placed in the same
situation in which it would have been if the interim order would
not have been passed against it. The successful party can
demand (a) the delivery to it of benefit earned by the opposite
party under the interim order of the High Court, or (b)
compensation for what it has lost, and to grant such relief is the
inherent jurisdiction of the Court. In our opinion, while granting
an order of stay under Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC, the appellate
court does have jurisdiction to put the party seeking stay order
on such terms as would reasonably compensate the party
successful at the end of the appeal in so far as those
proceedings are concerned. Thus, for example, though a
decree for payment of money is not ordinarily stayed by the
appellate Court, yet, if it exercises its jurisdiction to grant stay in
an exceptional case it may direct the appellant to make payment
of the decretal amount with interest as a condition precedent to
the grant of stay, though the decree under appeal does not
make provision for payment of interest by the judgment-debtor
to the decree-holder.