Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)
M/S Texmaco Ltd. vs Jagdev Singh on 5 August, 2011 cites

Smt. Veeran Devi vs S. Subhash on 8 August, 2008

14.Complainant company was required to establish on record that accused is the licensee of the complainant company. PW1 has deposed that the accused was allotted quarter in question on licence basis through letter Ex. PW1/5 which bears signature of accused at point A. Once the quarter in question was allotted to the accused on licence basis by the erstwhile owner, the status of the accused shall always remain as of a licensee. However, in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused has taken specific plea Texamco vs Jagdev Singh 13 that quarter was given to him on tenancy basis and allotment letter Ex. PW1/5 is forged and fabricated. Thus, onus was always upon the accused to prove that Ex. PW1/5 is forged and fabricated document and it does not bear his signature at point A. If signature of the accused is forged, the onus is upon the accused to prove this fact that the allotment letter Ex. PW1/5 does not bear his signature by bringing some concrete evidence on record. However, accused did not lead evidence in this regard, as such, it is held that allotment letter Ex. PW1/5 is duly signed by the accused. Except his statement accused has not brought on record any document i.e. rent receipt etc to show that he is tenant in the quarter. Moreover, accused did not deny the letter Ex. PW2/1 written by him to Birla Mill with a request to allot a quarter to him, which bears his signature at point A. Accused has simply claimed that he is tenant in the said quarter, however he has not lead any evidence to show that he is tenant in the quarter in question. Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that a tenancy is always created by a contract and for creating the contract of tenancy, both the parties i.e. landlord and tenant must be at ad­idem. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "2009 Texamco vs Jagdev Singh 14 (160) DLT 171, Viran Devi vs. S. Subhash" accused ought to have established on record the contract of tenancy, however, except a bald statement nothing is proved on record to show that there exists a tenancy agreement between the parties. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is held that accused is a licensee and complainant is the licensor.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 43 - S Khanna - Full Document

Atul Mathur, Divisional Sales Manager ... vs Atul Kalra And Anr on 8 August, 1989

obligation to vacate and hand over the possession of quarter in question which he failed to do so. Accused has not denied that he is still occupying the quarter. Since, he did not vacate and hand over the possession of the quarter in question after cessation of his service thus, it is held that accused has been wrongfully withholding the quarter. Moreover, it is also not disputed during cross examination that complainant company did not request lastly Texamco vs Jagdev Singh 16 on 10.07.03 seeking vacation of the quarter. Ld. defence counsel submitted that no notice of termination and notice to vacate the quarter was ever served upon the accused. These arguments of the Ld. defence counsel does not carry much weight as for maintaining the proceeding u/s 630 of Companies Act, aforesaid notice is not required to be served upon the accused. However, at the costs of repetition it is reiterated that services of the accused has already come to an end w.e.f 30.11.96. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "1989 (4) SCC 514, Atul Mathur vs Atul Kalra and Anr." that it is the duty of the court to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy u/s 630 of Companies Act and that the technicality should not come in the way of advancing the justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 207 - S R Pandian - Full Document
1   2 Next