Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)Section 7 in The Esso (Acquisition Of Undertakings In India) Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... vs Dolly Das on 13 April, 1999
11. Learned counsel for the appellants--writ petitioners has submitted that the aforesaid view is erroneous and in the facts of the case when the main relief for quashing of annexure 5 has been granted against a Government company which admitted in annexure 5 that the lease in its favour shall expire of February 28,1999, then denial of consequential relief for a direction to vacate the land in question should not have been left for decision by the civil court. It was further submitted that there was no contractual relationship between the writ petitioners and the Corporation with regard to tenancy/lease in question because the lease agreement was with ESSO and the Corporation stepped into shoes of ESSO by virtue of operation of the Act. According to him, since the Act, particularly Section 5(1), transferred upon the Corporation only the rights which were available to ESSO and nothing more hence, being a Government company and having taken advantage of the provisions of the Act, it cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily and to continue in possession after expiry of the lease in February, 1999. Such a right of further continuance was not conferred upon the Corporation by the Act or any other law and hence, the learned single judge ought to have followed the Orissa High Court judgment as well as that of Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dolly Das [1999] 4 SCC 450 and should have directed the Corporation to hand over vacant possession of the land in question to the writ petitioners within a fixed time. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments shows that the High Court of Orissa directed the Corporation to deliver vacant possession of the premises in question and the apex court did not interfere with such direction but only fixed the time period for vacating the premises, as per request made by the Corporation.
Smt. Dolly Das vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... on 11 August, 1993
9. No doubt, there is no express limitation in Section 5(2) of the Act, but it is clear that the provisions in question are transitory in nature and hence, must be interpreted in a manner which can fulfil the object of the Act without causing unnecessary hardship or injustice to innocent third parties who had leased their properties to ESSO before the appointed date. The learned single judge, in this connection, has adopted the views of the Orissa High Court in the case of Smt. Dolly Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., AIR 1994 Orissa 103.
Section 3 in The Esso (Acquisition Of Undertakings In India) Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 October, 1985
In the case of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.'s case, AIR 1986 SC 872, the petitioner succeeded in getting the impugned notice quashed through petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and there was no further relief sought by the petitioner falling for consideration before the court. It was with regard to the plea of the Union of India, a respondent in that case, for claims for recovery of conversion charges that the court granted a liberty to claim the same by a duly constituted suit. In that case such civil rights of the parties were found to flow from the lease deed and not from any statutory provision. Hence, the aforesaid judgments are of no help to the Corporation.
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Escorts Ltd. & Ors on 19 December, 1985
We have already considered paragraph 101 of judgment in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India's case [1986] 59 Comp Cas 548 and paragraph 102 only emphasises the principle that it is impossible to draw the line to demarcate the frontier between the public law domain and the private law field and that such question must be decided in each case with reference to the particular action and a host of other relevant circumstances. In that case the State was found to be acting as a shareholder in seeking to change the management of a company in question. In the present case the Corporation has stepped into the shoes of a lessee by virtue of statutory provisions of the Act.
Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 April, 1989
13. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the appellants-writ petitioners on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, AIR 1989 SC 1642, to submit that action of a public Corporation dealing with tenants was found to be one amenable to judicial review if such action is devoid of reason or is arbitrary.
Jag Mohan Mehrotra And Ors. vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... on 20 April, 2000
1. Both the Letters Patent appeals arise out of judgment and order dated April 20, 2000, by a learned single judge of this court in CWJC No. 1479 of 1999 (since reported in Jag Mohan Mehrotra v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [2002] 109 Comp Cas 844). In view of the nature of the case, both the appeals have been heard together in detail at the stage of admission itself and are being disposed of by this common order.