TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed affirming quit notice, rejecting promissory estoppel. Court upholds ejectment order, declines jurisdictional challenge.</h1> <h3>Vasantkumar Radhakisan Vora Versus Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay</h3> Vasantkumar Radhakisan Vora Versus Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay - 1991 AIR 14, 1990 SCR (3) 825 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the quit notice issued u/s 106 read with 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act.2. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.3. Jurisdiction of the trial court under Sec. 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.4. Constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Amendment Acts of 1963 and 1976.Summary:1. Validity of the Quit Notice:The respondent, a statutory body constituted under the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879, issued a quit notice u/s 106 read with 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act to terminate the tenancy of Vasantkumar. The appellants contended that the notice became ineffective as the State Act ceased to be operative from February 1, 1975, and the Central Act came into force. The Court held that the notice enures for the benefit of the successor in title of the lessor, and by operation of law, the respondent acquired the rights of the predecessor Board, making the quit notice valid and the suit for ejectment maintainable.2. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:The appellants argued that the respondent is estopped from ejecting them based on a promise made by the Estate Manager that they would be granted tenancy in the reconstructed building upon depositing a certain amount. The Court held that the Estate Manager lacked the authority to make such a promise, and even if made, it was subject to the approval of the Board, which was not granted. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be applied to acts prohibited by law or beyond the authority of the officer making the promise. Therefore, the plea of promissory estoppel was rejected.3. Jurisdiction of the Trial Court:The appellants contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under Sec. 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. The Court declined to entertain this point as it was neither raised in the writ petition nor argued in the High Court. It was also not included in the grounds of appeal or the synopsis of the case. Since it involved mixed questions of fact and law, the Court refused to consider it for the first time at this stage.4. Constitutional Validity of the Maharashtra Amendment Acts:The appellants challenged the vires of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Maharashtra Amendment Act, 1963, and the amended Sec. 46(2) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act as amended by the Maharashtra Amendment Act of 1976, arguing they offended Art. 14 of the Constitution. Although this point was raised in the grounds of appeal, it was not argued before the Court. The Court emphasized the need for full-dressed arguments on constitutional questions and declined to address this issue in the absence of such arguments.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of the quit notice and rejecting the application of promissory estoppel. The Court also declined to entertain the jurisdictional challenge and the constitutional validity issue due to procedural lapses. The order of ejectment passed by the Small Cause Court was upheld.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
