Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 45 (0.23 seconds)
Wine Shop Through Partner Kalindi P. ... vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 13 December, 2001 cites

State Of Orissa vs Brindaban Sharma on 23 July, 1991

33. It is also contended by the learned Addl. Advocate that the validity of fraudulently obtained licences can be questioned at any time and it cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner who is party to the wilful misrepresentation or fraud to get away with the licences in question. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and Ors. v. Brundaban Sharma and Anr. reported in 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 249 wherein it has been considered that the delay cannot be pleaded for acquiring right or title. Moreover, the Order of Tehsildar was subject to the approval of Board of Revenue. Tehsildar granted "patta" which was subject to the approval of the Board of Revenue. After 27 years, the Board of Revenue has quashed and set aside the "patta" issued by Tehsildar. After 27 years, the Board of Revenue cancelled the same. The ground of the tenant that he acquired the right due to lapse of time on the part of the authorities for a period of 27 years cannot be pleaded. Even in the facts of this case, the Order was quashed and set aside by the Board of Revenue as it was being illegal as no approval was obtained from the authority concerned. Even after 27 years that Order was confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Orissa High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 74 - Full Document

J.R. Vohra vs India Export House Pvt. Ltd. And Another on 14 February, 1985

Apart from these things there is also another factor which weakens the objections raised by the appellant and denudes them of force and content. He has waited for the full term of the lease to raise objections about the respondent playing a fraud on the statute. He has failed to put forth these objections within a reasonable time after the permission was granted by the Rent Controller to impugn the Order on the ground of the alleged fraud perpetrated by the respondent. It was observed by this Court in J.R. Vohra v. India Export House that the remedy available to a tenant in a case where there was only a ritualistic observance of the procedure while granting permission for the creation of a limited tenancy or where such permission was procured by fraud practiced by the landlord or was a result of collusion between the strong and the weak, would be for the tenant approaching the Debt Controller during the currency of the limited tenancy itself for adjudication of his pleas as soon as he disclosed facts and circumstance that tend to vitiate ab initio the initial grant of permission and not to wait till the landlord makes his application for recovery of the premises after the expiry of the period fixed Under Section 21.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 26 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next