https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188408 The court held that the receiver exceeded their authority by creating a new tenancy for Tatas, violating the injunction order, and rendering Tatas' tenancy invalid. Grindlays' existing tenancy was upheld as valid and protected under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed regarding Grindlays, affirming their tenancy. However, the appeal was allowed against Tatas, invalidating their tenancy and ordering their eviction for breaching the court's order. Each party was directed to bear its own costs. en-us Wed, 02 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:17:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188408 The court held that the receiver exceeded their authority by creating a new tenancy for Tatas, violating the injunction order, and rendering Tatas' tenancy invalid. Grindlays' existing tenancy was upheld as valid and protected under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed regarding Grindlays, affirming their tenancy. However, the appeal was allowed against Tatas, invalidating their tenancy and ordering their eviction for breaching the court's order. Each party was directed to bear its own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188408