Back
CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Mr. , J
M/s. Pancha Raghou Taank Ramniwas Sarda & Co. – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. substantial question of law raised. (Para 1) |
| 2. background facts of the lease agreement. (Para 2) |
| 3. filing of second appeal. (Para 3) |
| 4. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 5. court's analysis of lease renewal issues. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 6. explanation of the esso act, 1974. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. examination of defendant's evidence and claims. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. supreme court's guidance on renewal clauses. (Para 24 , 26 , 27) |
| 9. court's conclusions on 'holding over' under t.p. act. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 10. discussion on applicability of chhattisgarh accommodation control act. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 11. court's findings on defendant's status post-lease termination. (Para 36 , 37) |
| 12. substantial question of law resolved. (Para 38) |
| 13. final judgment issued. (Para 39 , 40) |
1. The substantial question of law formulated and to be answered by this Court in this plaintiff' s second appeal is as under:
"Whether both the Courts below are justified in dismissing the plaintiff's suit holding that there is an automatic renewal of lease in favour of defendant ignoring the fact that lease was never renewed under S.5(2) read with
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
