The landlord was offered the possession of the suit property which was refused by him on the pretext of damage to the suit property, whereas no evidence has been adduced by him about damage to the suit property except his bald statements.
Supreme Court said that the entry of the appellant over part of the suit property is simply as a licencee of the respondent. He does not continue to occupy it in the capacity of the owner. Thus, the licence having been terminated, he has no right to remain in possession but to restore possession to the person having rightful possessory title over it.
by Rohan Khosla†
Madras High Court said that Rule 55-A is delegated legislation which cannot go beyond the scope of the Parent Act viz., the Registration Act as well the Transfer of Property Act which is the substantive law governing the transfer of immovable properties. Hence, it is held that the first proviso is clearly ultra vires and unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court observed that the defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possession.
In the present case, Sukam Systems (P) Ltd. alleged infringement and passing of by Lithium Power Energy (P) Ltd. of its registered trade marks ‘Su-Kam’, ‘BIG conqueror Tubular Battery’ and ‘BIG Warrior Tubular Battery’.
African Court on Human and People’s Rights (‘AFCHPR’): While deciding the instant matter concerning the eviction of a Kenyan indigenous minority ethnic
Delhi High Court: In a matter with regard to the grant of leave to defend, Subramonium Prasad, J., expressed that, the tenant
Rajasthan High Court: Sameer Jain J. dismissed the petition and refused to interfere with the impugned order. Factual Background The facts of
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., is considering a very interesting case where the dispute between the parties is regarding the ownership
by Pramod Rao†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 15
Competition Commission of South Africa in a statement prohibited the transaction proposed by ECP Africa intended to acquire Burger King (South Africa)
by Achal Gupta†
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Anil Kshetarpal, J., while addressing the instant petition against the impugned order of Deputy Commissioner expressed that,
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has held that to prove the case
Orissa High Court: Dr A.K. Rath, J. dismissed an appeal seeking to reverse a judgment relating to suit for declaration. In the
Gauhati High Court: Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. dismissed an appeal filed against the judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby he had
Karnataka High Court: The Bench of Krishna S. Dixit, J., allowed petition filed by a senior citizen challenging wrongful usurpation of his
Patna High Court: The Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,