HIMA KOHLI
Hyundai Motor India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Opal Metal Engineering Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Hima Kohli, J.
1. By this order the Court proposes to dispose of an application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, whereunder the defendant has sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff cannot file any proceedings seeking to hold the suit property after expiry of the lease period i.e. after 31.12.2006 and that as the lease agreement is an unregistered document, and is hit by the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short `the Stamp Act), the suit is barred by law.
.2. A brief reference to the facts of the case is necessary before dealing with the present application. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendant praying inter alia for the following reliefs:
.(a) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men or agents, and all other persons acting on its behalf from preventing and/ or interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful enjoyment and possession of the suit schedule property situated at Plot No. H-4, Block B-1, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
.(b) For a declaration that the plaintiff cannot be evicted from the aforesaid suit schedule pro
Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Association (2005) 7 SCC 510
Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons and Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 394
Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Yanesh Property 1998 7 SCC 184 : AIR 1998 SC 3085
I.T.C Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal 1998 2 SCC 70 : AIR 1998 SC 634
M.A. Irani and Anr. v. Manekji Edulji Mistry and Ors. AIR 1974 SC 2123
Satish Chand Makhan and Ors. v. Govardhan Das Byas and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 143
R.C. Bhupal Prasad v. State of AP (1995) 5 SCC 698 : AIR 1996 SC 140
Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill (1982) 3 SCC 487
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. v. Asst.Charity Commissioner 2004 (3) SCC 137
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The descriptions provided do not include references to subsequent judicial treatment or negative treatment patterns such as overruling or reversal. Therefore, based solely on the provided information, there are no cases identified as bad law.
Followed / Affirmed:
Raptakos Brett And Company LTD. VS Ganesh Property - 1998 7 Supreme 276: The case discusses the validity of a suit for possession and concludes that the decree needs no interference, suggesting the decision was upheld or considered correct within the context. No indication of subsequent negative treatment is provided.
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable VS Assistant Charity Commissioner - 2004 2 Supreme 40: The case clarifies legal principles regarding Order VII Rule 11 CPC and possession rights, likely followed in subsequent cases, but no explicit treatment pattern is provided.
Distinguished / Clarified:
Popat And Kotecha Property VS State Bank Of India Staff Association - 2005 6 Supreme 7: The case emphasizes that disputed questions cannot be decided at the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, clarifying the scope of that provision. This appears to be a clarificatory decision that would be followed as a correct interpretation.
Important Point / Legal Principle:
I. T. C. LTD. VS Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal - 1998 1 Supreme 90: The case states that mere allegations of money withdrawal without movement of goods do not constitute a cause of action for fraud, establishing a legal principle that could be cited in future cases. No indication of negative treatment.
Anthony VS Ittoop - 2000 0 Supreme(Ker) 330: The case establishes that a lease can be created by conduct and that non-registration does not negate its existence. This is a substantive legal principle likely followed in subsequent rulings.
Uncertain / No clear treatment pattern:
The descriptions do not mention any appellate history, subsequent references, or judicial comments that indicate treatment such as criticism, questioning, or overruling. As such, the treatment of these cases appears to be normative or clarificatory, with no explicit indication of them being overruled or criticized.
None of the cases show explicit signs of being overruled, reversed, criticized, or questioned based on the information provided. The treatment patterns are not detailed enough to determine their current legal standing beyond their initial rulings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.