Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 22, 28 -- Decree of specific performance - Doctrine of merger - Applicability - It applies only to the limited extent - Principle of merger cannot be mechanically applied in specific performance suit - Court has to adopt realistic and pragmatic approach to the issue...........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 114, Order 47, Rule 1, Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 -- Special leave to appeal - Review - Doctrine of merger - Held, jurisdiction, conferred by Art.136 of the Constitution, is divisible into two stages - First stage is up to disposal of prayer for special leave to file an appeal - Second stage commences if and when leave to..........
Doctrine of merger -- Dismissal of review petition - There is no question of merger - Anyone aggrieved by the decree or order has to challenge it within the time stipulated by law provided for original decree and not the order dismissing the review petition...........
Limitation Act, 1963, Article 136 -- Execution - Decree for possession - Limitation 12 years - Starting point - Whether from date of trial Court judgment or from date of dismissal of revision for want of prosecution - Doctrine of merger applies - Held, revision dismissed for want of prosecution amounts to confirmation of decision of trial Court on merits - It amounts as..........
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 3,50 -- Two co-owners - Tenant purchasing share of one co-owner - Tenant cannot raise the plea of determination of tenancy on the ground of merger of his rights in that of share of the undivided estate of landlord, unless that merger is in respect of complete title or interest - It is not open to tenant to challenge maintainability of..........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 114, Order 47, Rule 1 -- Dismissal of SLP - Review petition before High Court thereafter - Maintainability of - Held, petitioner filed SLP challenging the order passed by High Court - Supreme Court dismissed said SLP - Review petition before High court challenging the very same order which was under challenge in SLP - Held, said order..........
Companies Act, 1956, Section 391(2), 394 -- Sanction of court in respect of Scheme of merger of company - Court before whom scheme is placed, is not bound to put seal of approval merely because majority of shareholders voted in favour of scheme - Court is expected to examine whether the scheme is fair, just and reasonable as it will have binding effect on the dissenting..........
Companies Act, 1956, Section 391(2), 394 -- Amalgamation/merger of company - Sanction of Court - Company to disclose pendency of any investigation in relation to company u/ss 235 to 351 and the like - Existence of proceedings under S.209A must be disclosed - Concurrent finding of fact that information supplied was sufficient - No interference...........
Companies Act, 1956, Section 394 -- Amalgamation/merger of company - Sanction of Court - Official Liquidator has to satisfy Court as to whether or not affairs of company dissolved were carried out in a manner prejudicial to interests of its members and public at large...........
Companies Act, 1956, Section 391(2), 394(1) -- Amalgamation/merger of company - Sanction of Court - Inspection u/s 209-A of the Act pending against company - Official Liquidator not disclosed this fact in is report - However, conduct of official liquidator not a ground to held up sanction when inspection report was placed before Company Judge - As Company Judge examined..........
