Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-07-1960
Reported in : AIR1960P& H639
Chopra, J.(1) The only question involved in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters patent is whether a second appeal against an order made in execution proceedings of a decree for ejectment passed under the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, XIX of 1947, is competent.(2) The facts relevant for the purposes of this appeal are these: The appellant-landlord had filed a suit for ejectment of his tenant, the respondent, on 24-8-1945, on the ground of the tenant having sublet a part of the premises without obtaining his consent. A decree for ejectment, on the basis of a compromise, was passed in favour of the landlord on 29-11-1945. According to the compromise the tenant was to vacate the premises after the expiry of six months. The tenant having failed to vacate the premises, the landlord-decree-holder took out execution of the decree. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the Delhi and Ajmer Merwara Rent Control Act, XIX of 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-18-1960
Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc. - 362 U.S. 373 (1960) U.S. Supreme Court Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc., 362 U.S. 373 (1960) Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc. No. 214 Argued February 24-25, 1960 Decided April 18, 1960 362 U.S. 373 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 24, when the author of a copyrighted musical composition dies testate, leaving no widow, widower or child, before time to apply for renewal of the copyright, his executor is entitled to the renewal rights -- even though the author had previously sold and assigned his renewal rights to a music publisher. Pp. 362 U. S. 373 -378. 265 F.2d 925, affirmed. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner, a music publisher, sued respondent, another music publisher, for infringement of petitioner's rights through one Ben Black, as coauthor, in the renewal copyright of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-30-1960
Reported in : AIR1961MP49
Dixit, C.J. 1. This reference arises out of second appeal No. 33 of 1959. The questions that arise for determination in this reference lie within a very narrow compass. They are: whether in a suit pending on the date of commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955, a decree for eviction can be passed except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in Section 4(2) of the Act; whether a decree for eviction obtained before 1st January, 1959 can be executed against a tenant so long as the Act is in force except on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 4; and whether a person whose tenancy has come to an end before the commencement of the Act is a tenant for the purposes of the Act and can claim the protection given under the Act. As the question whether a person whose tenancy has been determined is a tenant within the meaning of the Act, has been decided directly by a Division Bench of this Court in Bankelal v. Sant Sharan, 1959 MP LJ 589, and the correctness of that...
Tag this Judgment!