Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.30 seconds)Ashoka Marketing Ltd. And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Punjab National Bank And Ors. Etc. Etc on 7 August, 1990
66. We have not for a moment taken any position different from the
propositions in Ashoka Mktg. [Ashoka Mktg. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank,
(1990) 4 SCC 406] We are in fact in agreement therewith, and we are not
accepting the submission of Mr Nariman, that only contractual tenancies
were sought to be covered under that judgment, and not statutory
tenancies. Tenancies of both kinds will be covered by that judgment, and
they will be covered under the Public Premises Act for the subjects
specified therein. The only issue is with effect from which date. That aspect
was not canvassed at all before the Constitution Bench, and that is the only
aspect which is being clarified by this judgment. We are only clarifying that
the application of the Public Premises Act will be only from 16-9-1958, or
from such later date when premises concerned become public premises on
the landlord concerned becoming a government company or public
corporation. When the law laid down by the different Benches of this Court
including by the Constitution Benches on retrospectivity is so clear, and so are
the provisions of the Public Premises Act, there is no occasion for this Court to
take any other view. When this judgment is only clarifying and advancing the
proposition laid down in Ashoka Mktg. [Ashoka Mktg. Ltd.v.Punjab National Bank,
(1990) 4 SCC 406] , there is no reason for us to accept the objections raised by Mr
Raval, that the issues raised in this matter should not be decided by this Bench
but ought to be referred to a larger Bench.
Suhas H Pophale vs Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd.& Anr on 11 February, 2014
5 The submissions of the learned counsel for the
tenant are three fold. Firstly, he urged that there
is evidence on record to show that the petitioner
falls in the category of persons with disability
under the provisions of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995 (for short
"Disabilities Act"). He urged that the impugned
orders are vitiated as the rights of the tenant
under the provisions of the Disabilities Act have
not been considered by the Estate Officer as well as
the Appellate Authority. The second submission is
that the order of eviction is contrary to the
::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:23:52 :::
5 wp1290-5315
binding guidelines issued by the Government of
India. Lastly, he submitted that in view of the law
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Suhas H.
Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and
its Estate Officer1, the tenant cannot be evicted
from the said premises. His submission is that the
said building in which the said premises are
situated was not vested in the said Bank on 24 th May
1972 and thus, the said Act of 1971 will became
applicable to the said building from the date of the
conveyance under which the Bank purchased the
property. He submitted that the father of the tenant
was a tenant of the said premises even before vendor
of the said bank (Life Insurance Corporation of
India) came into existence.
Kaiser-I- Hind Pvt. Ltd. & Another Etc., ... vs National Textile Corporation Ltd., & ... on 25 September, 2002
Paras 42 and 65 of
Kaiser-I-Hind case [Kaiser-I-Hind (P) Ltd. v. National Textile Corpn.
(Maharashtra North) Ltd., (2002) 8 SCC 182] which are relied upon also do
not deal with the aspect of retrospectivity and being protected under the
welfare legislation. That being so, it is not possible to accept this
submission of Mr Vikas Singh."
The Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971
Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... on 22 August, 1980
In para 631 of the
judgment in Suhas H. Pophale [Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2014) 4 SCC 657 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 685] this Court has referred to the
judgment in Jain Ink Mfg. Co. v. LIC [Jain Ink Mfg. Co. v. LIC, (1980) 4 SCC 435] ,
and has observed that the issue of protection under a welfare legislation being
available to the tenant prior to the premises becoming public premises, and the
issue of retrospectivity, was not under consideration before the Court in Jain Ink
Mfg. Co. [Jain Ink Mfg. Co. v. LIC, (1980) 4 SCC 435] The same holds good for the
judgment rendered in Ashoka Mktg. Ltd. [Ashoka Mktg.
Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. And Ors vs National Textile Corporation ... on 25 September, 2002
Paras 42 and 65 of
Kaiser-I-Hind case [Kaiser-I-Hind (P) Ltd. v. National Textile Corpn.
(Maharashtra North) Ltd., (2002) 8 SCC 182] which are relied upon also do
not deal with the aspect of retrospectivity and being protected under the
welfare legislation. That being so, it is not possible to accept this
submission of Mr Vikas Singh."
Mrs. Rani Sevakram vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 28 February, 2017
In the decision of the learned Single Judge in the
case of Mrs.Rani Sevakram vs. Oriental Insurance
Company, he has held that in view of the decision
in the case of Ashoka Marketing, the decision in the
case of Suhas Pophale is not a binding precedent. In
::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:23:52 :::
15 wp1290-5315
view of the above decision, the view taken by the
learned Single Judge is not correct.