Whether the transaction turns out to be good or bad on the merits can have no effect on the sanction, which had been granted before it was entered into. When that has been done, the force of the section is spent. 2005 read along with amended Rule 7A(3) as there were two conflicting Division Bench decisions, namely, Abdurahiman v. 2 As many as ten issues were framed by the Trial Court which went on to decree the suit against the Respondent Company, but dismissed it as against Respondent Nos.
The State of Orissa and others(1) and Thakur Amar Singh v. So far as the Four Star hotels are concerned, the Single Judge noted that there are only 20 Five Star hotels in Kerala and only 33 hotels in the Four Star and Heritage categories. 2 to 4 were not recoverable from Advocates (our website) the latter. In other words, the agreement as a whole would be governed by Indian Law, and in case of arbitration, the English Law will apply. Regarding the former, it was held that their contention that the classification is discriminatory is no longer res integra in view of the dictum of this Court in B.
That apart, respondent No. While there is a presumption that the Government has full knowledge of the social aspects of the proposed controls, in the absence of any material on the record, this presumption cannot be pushed to the extent of presuming that the State could have possessed some undisclosed and unknown reason or material to justify its action. The conclusions of the Trial Court so far as they are germane to decision in this Appeal were that the liabilities incurred by the Respondent Company prior to the execution of the personal guarantees by Defendant Nos.
It is said that the State can pick and choose the estate of one zamindar and leave out those of their favourite ones, as indeed they have since done by withdrawing the Notification with respect to Gouripore and Prabatjoar estates. The Trial Court placed reliance on two judgments of the Madras High Court, namely J. Article 22 has in fact two parts. And the result is the same whether the deed is bad in part or in toto. In the light of this legal position, the High Court should have held this issue in appellants favour.
1 in clear terms admitted in his evidence and in the pleading of cases filed by him against the appellants about his status as being the tenant. The approach in analysing the terms of agreement should be straight and plain but at the same time cohesive and logical. Section 18 only requires that the transaction should be entered into with the sanction of the Board. In the view we have taken on article 31-A) it is unnecessary to discuss the question of the applicability of article 31(4).
Both the Courts Advocates (my link) below were, therefore, right and justified in accepting the claim of the plaintiff-appellant and the High Court was completely in error in setting aside the concurrent view and allowing the second appeal. State of Rajasthan(2). The One Man Commission and the Tax Secretary recommended the grant of licenses to hotels with sufficient facilities. State Bank of India AIR 1976 MAD 211 and D.
That is how the impugned judgment came to be passed by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court on 08. In the first part of that Article, it is agreed between the parties that the proper law of the contract will be governed by the prevailing law of India, and in the case of arbitration, English Law would apply. The result is that the deeds dated 26-3-1915 and 23-11-1917 are valid but not the deed dated 1-6-1937, and that the leases granted to the appellant are valid, but the clause postponing the payment of minimum royalty in the lease deed or deeds of 2-8-1937 is inoperative.
The contention therefore that the lease deeds dated 2-8-1937 are inoperative must be rejected. 324 article 14 does Advocates (our website) not really help the appellant. 5 is extracted hereunder : 5 of the statutory notification of 21. Be that as it may, it is stated that with reference to the implication of Rule 51A in which an amendment came to be made w. Radhakrishnan or the appellants in relation to suit premises. If the deed is bad on the merits, it will fail on that ground and not on the ground that by reason thereof, the sanction becomes ineffective.
of Kerala – 2010 (2) KLT 99, the Division Bench of the High Court before whom the above writ petitions were posted, referred the matter to a Full Bench. This contention again is clearly untenable. 1993 issued under section 49 of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Before dilating further it is appropriate to take note of clause 16. Government of Kerala 2009 (2) KLT 105 and Maya v. It was held that none of the material before the State Government proposed the exclusion of Four Star and Heritage hotels from the criterion of eligibility for bar licenses.
We have, however, to touch very briefly a few subsidiary points urged before us. Six Hotels and Surendra Das. Secondly, it is contended that the sanction that was accorded by the Board was to the lease with the 356 covenant which has been held to be void, and that the deed without that Advocates (our website) covenant has not been sanctioned. No doubt, one should not strain too much to interpret an agreement between two parties as in the case of a statutory interpretation.
There is no force in this contention in view of the decisions of this court in Biswambhar Singh v.