Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 116 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Cinematograph Act, 1952
The Petroleum Act, 1934
C. Albert Morris vs K. Chandrasekaran & Ors on 26 October, 2005
17. In this connection, it is necessary to
make a cursory glance of Act 144, 153(1) (i), 154
(2) of Petroleum Act. The scope, ambit and the
relevance of the jural relation of lessor and lessee is
taken care of by the said legal provisions. Further,
the Apex Court in the case of C. Albert Morris Vs.
K.Chandrasekaran and others (2006) 1
Supreme Court Cases 228, have considered the
boundary line, demarking, the possession over a
property of a lessee in possession of the leased
property during lease and the one after the
termination of lease. Accordingly, the Petroleum
Rules do not permit the appellant to claim
possession over the property, paving way for
carrying on the petroleum business. Thus, the 3rd
respondent Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, had the
jurisdiction to revoke the 'No Objection Certificate'.
However, he ought not to have given emphasis on
the lease and its termination. Regard being had to
the fact that those observations neither add nor
deduct any of rights or duties to either of the
parties. Though possession of the appellant-
Corporation over the property till termination of
tenancy was lawful, but became unlawful after
termination of lease.
Bhawanji Lakhamhi & Ors vs Himatlal Jamnadas Dani & Ors on 14 December, 1971
In the case of Bhawanji Lakhamshi & Ors. Vs.
Himatlal Jamnadas Dani & Ors. (supra), this Court
observed as under:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M. C. Chockalingam & Ors vs V. Manickavasagam & Ors on 31 October, 1973
The question then is what is the meaning of
the expression "lawful possession". This was
considered by this Court in a leading decision on the
right to grant licence under the Cinematographic Act
and the Madras Cinemas Rules in M.C.
Chockalingam Vs. V. Manickavasagam. Rule 13 of
the Madras Rules required the licensee in lawful
possession, when he had applied for renewal after
the expiry of the lease of the licensee. The Court
observed thus: (SCC p. 57, para 15).