FIRM OF HARBANSLAL JAGMOHANDAS & ANR. versus PRABHUDAS SHIVLAL

FIRM OF HARBANSLAL JAGMOHANDAS & ANR. versus PRABHUDAS SHIVLAL

The Supreme Court held that the statements in the special leave petition were legal contentions rather than misstatements of material facts and that no suppression or misleading on material matters occurred; therefore, the prayer for revocation of special leave had to be rejected.

Parties
Petitioners/appellants: Firm of Harbanslal Jagmohandas & Anr.; Respondent: Prabhudas Shivlal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 April 1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Miscellaneous Petition / Civil Appeal / Application for Revocation of Special Leave, Application for Stay, Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for revocation of special leave rejected; stay of dispossession granted on terms; amendment application allowed.
Legal Topics
Revocation of Special Leave, Conflicting Decisions Between High Courts, Scope of Special Leave Application, Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (control) Act, 1947, Eviction for Non Payment of Rent, Misstatement/misleading the Court
Practice and Procedure Landlord and Tenant Law Revocation of Special Leave Conflicting Decisions Between High Courts Scope of Special Leave Application Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (control) Act, 1947 Eviction for Non Payment of Rent Misstatement/misleading the Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Firm of Harbanslal Jagmohandas & Anr.

Petitioners/appellants

Prabhudas Shivlal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Miscellaneous Petition / Civil Appeal / Application for Revocation of Special Leave, Application for Stay, Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the special leave granted by the Supreme Court should be revoked for alleged misleading or misstatement in the special leave petition
  2. 2 Whether drawing attention to conflicting High Court decisions, without having raised the point or cited the judgment in the lower court, constitutes a material misstatement or suppression of fact

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the statements in the special leave petition were legal contentions rather than misstatements of material facts and that no suppression or misleading on material matters occurred; therefore, the prayer for revocation of special leave had to be rejected.

Court Disposition

Application for revocation of special leave rejected; stay of dispossession granted on terms; amendment application allowed.

Orders

  • Special leave not revoked; petitioners permitted to proceed with appeal.
  • Stay of dispossession granted pending appeal, provided petitioners deposit arrears and future rent as specified; respondent at liberty to withdraw rents.