Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(4)BomCR136; (2001)3BOMLR518
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Judgment Debtors for setting aside the insolvency Notice dated 30th August. 1999, taken out by the Decree Holder. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this Notice of Motion are that in Appeal No. 636 of 1991 the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 26th June. 1992 passed a consent decree, which according to the Decree Holder is a decree for payment of money. The Decree Holder took out an Insolvency Notice dated 30th August, 1999 and served it on the judgment Debtor on 20th September, 1999. The Notice was taken out under the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. On being served with that notice the Judgment Debtor has taken out this Notice of Motion for, setting aside that Insolvency Notice on various grounds including the ground that the decree pursuant to which this Insolvency Notice has been taken out is not enforceable, as the decree holder has not obtained a leave of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H163
1. This is a revision petition by the landlords Bal Kishan and others against the order of the District Judge, Sangrur, and Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (Act No. III of 1949) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), whereby the order of the Rent Controller, Sangrur, fixing on the petition of Gopi Chand etc. tenants the fair rent of the premises in suit at Rs. 343.75 nP. per annum, was confirmed.2. An application by the tenants was made under Section 4 of the Act. The land in suit was situated within the municipal limits of Sangrur. In the year 1952-53 the contractual rent was Rs. 900/- per annum. The tenants moved the Rent Controller, Sangrur, under the provisions of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2006 Bk. (Ordinance No. VIII of 2006 Bk.) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Ordinance) for fixation of fair rent. Under Section 4 of the Ordinance, the Controller while fixing the fair rent was r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1965]2SCR705
Wanchoo, J. 1. These two appeals by special leave from two judgments of the Punjab High Court raise a common question with respect to the application of the first proviso to section 57(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, No. 59 of 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the present Act). They arise from decisions of two learned Single Judges in revision applications under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, No. 38 of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 1952 Act.) In one of them (C.A. 879) the learned Judge has held that in view of the first proviso to section 57(2), a decree for ejectment against the tenant could not be passed. In the other appeal (No. 121), the other learned Judge has held that the tenant is liable to ejectment in spite of the first proviso to section 57(2) of the present Act. It will thus be seen that the two decisions are contradictory and raise the question as when the first proviso to section 57(2) precisely applies to facts similar to the facts in the presents two app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC818; (1974)1SCC424; [1974]2SCR629
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 50 of 1968 and 1201 of 1970. From the judgment and Order dated the 20th January 1966, and' 26th November 1968 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeals Nos. 1124 of 1963 and 153 of 1966. K.S. Ramamurthy and S. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant (in both the appeals). S.V. Gupte and A.S. Nambiar, for respondent Nos. 1-3 (in both-., the appeals). S. Govindaswaminathan, A.V..Rangam, N.S. Sivam and A. Subshashini, for respondent No. 5 (in both the appeals). B.R. Agrawala, for intervener (in C.A. 50/68). The Judgment of A.N. Ray, C.J., H.R. Khanna and A. Alagiri-- swami, JJ. was delivered by Alagiriswami, J. The dissenting Opinion of' K.K. Mathew and P.N. Bhagwati JJ. was delivered by Bhagwati, J. ALAGIRISWAMI, J. The appellants are the tenants of a property bearing door Nos. 16 and 17 on the Poonamallee High Road in the city of Madras. They became tenants of this building in May 1929, when the property was with one of the predecessors in title...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H262
Surinder Singh, J.1. The point referred to 'the wisdom of five' is not ariddle which only Oedipus could have solved. Though the Revision Petition has been referred to us for decision in toto, In essence the question requiring consideration is whether the issuance of a notice under Section 106, T. P. Act, is a must before a landlord can seek eviction of the tenant under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (referred hereinafter as the Rent Act).2. Facts must precede percipience and judgment would follow without constraint. Vinod Kumar minor, acting through his father as his next friend, (to be referred for brevity as the landlord) launched a petition under Section 13 of the Rent Act against Harbans Singh Azad respondent (referred henceforth as the tenant) for his eviction from a shop situated at Sirsa, District Hissar, on two grounds, namely, (i) the tenant had failed to pay the rent for the premises with effect from December 2, 1965, i. e., for a period of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1969SC778; [1969]72ITR595(SC); [1969]1SCR714
Ramaswami, J. 1. This appeal is brought by certificate against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 14/15th December, 1964, in Special Civil Application No. 54 of 1964 whereby a writ of mandamus was issued to quash the notices issued under Sections 147, 148 and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the respondent.2. The respondent was assessed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward E, Circle II, Ahmedabad, for the assessment year 1947-48 by an assessment order dated January 31, 1952. The Income-tax Officer thereafter received information that a certain profit made by the assessee in the name of Natwarlal Manilal Pandit who was a benamidar of the respondent had escaped assessment by reason of the respondent not having disclosed it at the time of the original assessment. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, after obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax issued a notice dated March 27, 1956, under Section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1239; JT1992(3)SC174; 1992(1)SCALE868; 1992Supp(2)SCC250; [1992]2SCR670; 1992(2)LC555(SC)
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated October 6, 1980 in M.P. No. 12/73 arising out of proceedings initiated by Shiv Ram, respondent No. 1 herein, against Malkhan under Section 248(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), for his ejectment from 19 Bighas 8 Biswas of land in Village Juara, District Morena, Madhya Pradesh, on the ground that he was in unauthorised possession of the said land. 2. In Village Juara, District Morena, falling in the former Gwalior State, there is a temple of Shri Ram Janakiji. 78 Bighas 17 Biswas of agricultural land had been given, by way of maufi, for the temple by the ruler of the former Gwalior State. Vasudev Rao, father of respondent No. 1, was the Pujari of the said temple and he was described as the Maufidar in the revenue records. The said maufi grant was revoked and the maufi land was handed over to the Department...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC826; 1979CriLJ566; (1979)1SCC535; [1979]2SCR875
Jaswant Singh, J.1. The above noted two criminal appeals which are directed against the common Judgment and Order dated August 6, 1975 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay affirming on appeal the Judgment and Order dated August 6, 1973 of the Special Judge Greater Bombay, convicting S.P. Bhatnagar, appellant in the aforesaid first appeal, (hereinafter described as A-1) under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947,. and sentencing him to six months simple imprisonment on each of the said two counts as well as convicting A.S. Krishnaswami, appellant in the aforesaid second appeal (hereinafter described as A-2) under the aforesaid two counts but reducing his sentence from nine months' imprisonment to six months' simple imprisonment on each one of those counts shall be disposed of by this judgment.2. Briefly put the case as set up by the prosecution was:In 1964, the Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC135; [1965]35CompCas755(SC); [1965]3SCR665
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. These appeals, by special leave, are against the decree of the LifeInsurance Tribunal, Nagpur, in proceedings on an application by the LifeInsurance Corporation of India (hereinafter called the Corporation) under s. 15of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (Act XXXI of 1956), shortly termedas the LIC Act, for ordering the Vishwabharti Insurance Company, Bombay, DamjiValji Shah and Jayantilal Hirjibhai Chawda, appellants in the C.A. 676 .1962, hanshyamdas, appellant in C.A. 677 of 1962, the afore-mentioned individualsbeing directors of the Vishwabharti Insurance Company, and another director, topay to the Corporation jointly and severally the sum of Rs. 82,000/- togetherwith interest there at 6% per annum form September 1, 1956, till full payment.The decree ordered the company to pany to pay a further sum, but we are notconcerned with that part of the decree as the company has not appealed againstit. 2. The facts of the case briefly are these. The company was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1353; (1977)2SCC640; [1977]3SCR327; 1977(9)LC327(SC)
Jaswant Singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and order dated April 28, 1975, of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 1819 of 1975 filed by the appellants and respondents 3 to 37 herein, who are industrial workers employed in factories situate in the industrial area in Chandigarh.2. The facts leading to this appeal are: In 1956, the Legislature of the then State of Punjab enacted what is called the Punjab Industrial Housing Act, 1956 (Punjab Act 16 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to provide for allotment, recovery of rent, eviction and other ancillary matters in respect of houses constructed under the subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme for industrial workers in the State of Punjab. In exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 24 of the Act, the State Government made rules called the Punjab Industrial Housing Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!