https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462752 The SC partially allowed the appeal in a property lease dispute. The Court held that the HC's May 5, 1986 order merely permitted joint receivers to enter lease agreements, not directly grant leases. After the first appeal's dismissal on October 3, 1988, the property vested absolutely in the appellant and sister, terminating joint receivership and HC's jurisdiction over subsequent orders. The respondent lost entitlement to premises 21/1/C due to unauthorized illegal construction violating lease terms. However, the Court directed execution of lease deed for premises 21/1/D for remaining 21-year term from June 16, 1986, subject to arrears payment. The Court dismissed damages claims and held that dismissal of SLPs without positive directions doesn't merge HC orders with SC orders. en-us Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jul 2025 17:21:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462752 The SC partially allowed the appeal in a property lease dispute. The Court held that the HC's May 5, 1986 order merely permitted joint receivers to enter lease agreements, not directly grant leases. After the first appeal's dismissal on October 3, 1988, the property vested absolutely in the appellant and sister, terminating joint receivership and HC's jurisdiction over subsequent orders. The respondent lost entitlement to premises 21/1/C due to unauthorized illegal construction violating lease terms. However, the Court directed execution of lease deed for premises 21/1/D for remaining 21-year term from June 16, 1986, subject to arrears payment. The Court dismissed damages claims and held that dismissal of SLPs without positive directions doesn't merge HC orders with SC orders. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462752