Posts

Showing posts with the label Appeal

Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment
Read more

Chunilal V. Mehta v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962

Image
Introduction   This case will tell us ' about what constitutes substantial question of law'  which is  required for further appeal in the Supreme Court for civil matters as provided under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.  Fact   Chunnilal Mehta and Co. were appointed as managing agent of the respondent company for a term of 21 years by an agreement. A resolution passed by the company transferred all the benefits of the agreement to the present appellant Chunnilal Mehta and sons Ltd. Before the expiry of the tenure, the board of directors of the company removed the appellant from his position. Therefore the appellant filed a civil suit in the Bombay High Court  claiming Rs 50 lakhs as damages for wrongful termination of the agreement which was later decreased to Rs 28 lakhs. Issue was to how much damages had to be paid by the respondent company. By interpreting Clause 14 of the agreement, the Court held that appellant would get only Rs 2,34,000 by
Post a Comment
Read more