Leasing – Licensing Conflict: A Critical Analysis of Tata Teleservices V. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors (2008)

I. Introduction

Right to Property and its enjoyment is something that has been incorporated in the human culture for as long as it has existed.² While the Indian Constitution recognised this right as a fundamental right, it was later amended to be included as a right under the Constitution rather than a fundamental right, which the state could be held accountable for, in case violation.³

While one has the unchallenged right of enjoyment of their own property, there also exists a right of temporarily giving away this right of ‘enjoyment’ to another person in exchange for some consideration. This includes lease, mortgage, license, etc. The present case under analysis is an example, where amongst the various methods of transfer of right available, lack of clear distinction led to conflict in the agreement resulting in not only the violation of The Transfer of Property Act⁴ and Easement Act⁵, but also the Indian Stamps Act⁶.

In the present matter between Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors⁷, the petitioner had entered into 17 different licensing agreements within the Ghaziabad District for the establishment, operation and maintenance of ‘cell sites’ on empty roof spaces of the 17 respective parties. Via a letter dated February 2, 2003, the Commissioner (Stamps) notified that telecom companies had been issuing deeds between themselves and private person and that improper stamp duties were being levied on them. In pursuance of this, a letter dated November 9, 2004, was sent to the petitioners for presentation before District Magistrate on November 19, 2004. Upon failure of presentation, another notice was sent dated December 10, 2004, upon failure of which another notice dated December 12, 2004 was sent, this time with additional presentation order of the licensing agreements. Since no concrete presentation was made by the petitioners, the Assistant Commissioner passed a composite order, according to which the total violation amounted to Rs. 13,13,300/-. The order stated that since the deeds were executed for a period of over a year, they were leases rather than licenses.

The petitioner appealed the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Commissioner which are dismissed. This was then appealed before the High Court, where the petitioner is challenging all of the orders, the main issue being determination of whether the deed is a license or a lease.

The research is limited to the context of India alone. While the researcher may provide international or foreign literature, it is purely for analogous interpretation. Various legislations and amendments pertaining to the said issues will be discussed. Further judicial pronouncements will be used to advance arguments and explain key contentions.

Research Objectives

In the due course of this research work, the researcher seeks to fulfil the following research objectives –

• To Critically analyse the judgment given by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of

Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.⁸

• To understand in details the provisions under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act (leasing) and the essential elements of it.
• To understand in detail the provision under Section 52 of the Easement Act (licensing) and the essential elements of it.
• To understand the difference between ‘Lease’ and ‘Licensing’ through various cases and literature.
• To provide suggestions with regards to any inconsistencies found after due research and literature analysis.

Research Questions

In the due course of this research, the researcher seeks to answer the following research questions –

1. What is ‘lease’ under the Transfer of Property Act and what are its essentials?

2. What is ‘license’ under the Easement Act and what are its essentials?

3. What are the major differences between Leasing and Licensing? Is there a limitation period beyond which a license becomes a lease?

4. What was the rationale behind the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.⁹?

Research Methodology

There are two broad forms of research methods available to a researcher – doctrinal and non-doctrinal. Doctrinal research consists of analysis and usage of pre-existing literature to derive onto conclusions beneficial for the research undertaken, while non-doctrinal research includes collection of ‘raw’ data using various sampling techniques and the usage of such field data to substantiate a research.

For the current research, the researcher has strictly followed Doctrinal research method taking into account the time and the economic constraint. Data form primary as well as secondary sources will be evaluated and subsequently be used in the paper.

Literature Review

Literature review is an essential part of an extensive research regime. A researcher, in the course of his research work accumulates a wide array of data which helps in providing concrete legitimacy to the research as undertaken.

Since the research stems out of a case judgement, the foremost primary literature is the Judgment as passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.¹⁰

For the following research, it was necessary that all the technical aspects of the study be covered in accordance with the law as quoted. ‘Transfer of Property Act 1882’¹¹ by Dinshah Fardunji Mulla and Solil Paul written by Dr Poonam Pradhan and ‘Textbook on the Transfer of Property Act’ ¹² by Dr Avatar Singh was referred to understand the provision of the laws more elaborately. Since the applicability of a section is dependent on the qualified fulfilment of its essentials, the books helped the researcher with a detailed insight into those essentials and various cases pertaining to those essentials. Further reading of the texts also allow the researcher to realise the gap in the literature which can be addressed in due course of this paper. Further to ensure better legal precedents for supporting through the course of this write up, ‘The Transfer of Property Act’¹³ by Prof (Dr) Harpreet Kaur was also referred. The text is especially helpful as a guide in legal precedents in context of the issues discussed. Further, the digest also contained information specific to the case being discussed in this text.

The main contention being raised by the petitioners in the present case¹⁴ concerns the difference between a license and a lease deed. To understand the issue is a more analytical manner, additional literature dealing particularly with lease and license had to be referred. ‘Liberalising the Lease Market’¹⁵ by H.R. Sharma throws light on leasing of land in the context of farming lands. The paper, in its core explains why leasing is a more feasible option over other forms of transfers available. Through this literature, the researcher is trying to establish feasible recommendations. Further another paper titled ‘Technical Aspects of Aircraft Lease (Part II of II)’¹⁶ by Ms. Rekha Panchal, talks particular leasing of aircrafts for airline corporation. This helped the researcher understand the essentials of a leasing agreement and all other types of connotations attached to it. ‘Right of a Lessee to retain possession of premises subsequent to determination of lease by efflux of time’¹⁷ by Ms. Mitali Yadav and Mr. Sahil Asthana was referred to study the aspects of leasing with respect to time barred deeds. Since it was argued in the case that since deed extended beyond one year and thus came within the purview of lease, it was necessary for the researcher to establish that there indeed is a relation between the period and subsequent usage thereof. Beyond this bare acts, and cases and literature mentioned within them was referred.

Article published by renowned legal article website Academike, titled ‘Definition of License and granting of licence’¹⁸ by Ms. Yamini Rajora was referred to instil background information on the specific nooks related to the procedure and process of licencing including the variability of such contracts. Research paper by renowned Advocate, C.F. Fernandes, titled ‘Lease and Licence’¹⁹ was referred to gain insight on the differences and similarities between the two concepts. The paper was helpful in guiding the researcher through the complexities within the two concepts. Lastly, research article titled ‘Licence and its Revocation’²⁰ was referred to understand the concepts surrounding the concept of licence under the Indian Easement Act more vividly through careful analysis of each and every provision of the licencing as mentioned. Further, the article also provided necessary case information and backgrounds for the researcher to understand the concepts clearly.

II. Background analysis of tata teleservices ltd. V. State of uttar pradesh & ors²¹

FACTS –

Before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court before Justice Janardan Sahai,

Tata teleservices private limited is a company that is involved in providing telecommunication services across the Indian State. In doing so, requires the installation, set-up, and maintenance of telephone towers. The petitioner is the present case had acquired permission to establish, maintain and operate fixed and mobile communication services, per section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act.²²

In the given case, the petitioner, under 17 identical licences, entered into a contract with house owners to install and operate radio-based stations, also known as cell sites and Telecom towers and other related equipment’s atop their rooftops in the Ghaziabad district to improve telecommunication services in the area. In accordance with the agreement entered into by the petitioner and the 17 individual parties, the nature of acquirement of property was to be via a licence where the petitioner was the ‘licensee’ whereas the 17 individual parties were ‘licensors. In pursual of the same, the petitioner and the 17 individual parties entered into binding contract via an agreement on a Rs. 100/- stamp paper, in accordance with entry 5-C of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamps Act.

Through a notification dated 5^th February 2003, the Commissioner (Stamps) notified the Assistant Commissioner and Additional Collectors of telecom companies entering agreements for setting up of new Cell Site with improper agreements and faulted stamp payments. Further, the Commissioner (Stamps) directed the local authorities to meet with such company owners and inspect the agreements entered into in their Jurisdiction.

Acting upon the request made vide the circular issues by the Commissioner (Stamps), the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad issued a notice dated 9^th November 2004, addressed to the petitioners stating that requisite stamp duty had not been paid by the parties. Whereas stamp duty had been paid, it was pointed out by the District Magistrate that the contracts entered into by the parties were in-fact, leases as opposed to being licences and therefore should have been charged in accordance with Article 35 of Schedule 1-B. Further, the District Magistrate noted that by charging faulty stamp duties, the petitioner had violated section 17 of the Stamps Act. In pursual of the same, the petitioners were sent a notice to appear before the District Magistrate on 19^th November 2004. Upon failure of presentation, the petitioners were sent another on 10^th December 2004. Finally, the petitioner furnished a report on 27^th January 2005 with all the details of the contract disclosing the amount being paid to the licensor for a period of 20 years. The petitioner alleged that the first notice was not delivered to them before the date and was in-fact delivered on 20^th December 2004.

Upon servicing the necessary documents, and after their due review, another notice was sent to the petitioners on 17^th February 2005, showing that the petitioners had in fact violated the provisions of the Stamps Act, further stating that the agreements entered into by the petitioners and the other individual 17 parties were a lease and not a licence. In pursual of the same, the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) passed a composite order dated 14^th March 2005, fined the petitioner Rs. 13,13,300, accounting for the deficiency in the stamp duty and the fine, considering the fact that the agreements entered into by the petitioner with those 17 individuals were in-fact lease deeds as opposed to being licence deeds.

Subsequently, appeals before the Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner were dismissed by the commissioner via an order dated 25^th April 2005. The petitioners had then moved to the Hon’ble High Court in pursual of challenge to the orders, notices, and the dispute in pertaining to the nature of the deeds.

Issues to be Discussed via This Research

The major issue in the context of the case stems out of the nature of the contract itself. While the petitioners claimed that they had entered into license agreements, in accordance with the provision of the laws, the Commissioner (Stamps) and the District Magistrate concluded that they were, in fact, Lease agreements. In a crux, the whole issue pertaining to the default in terms of the stamp duty, and the subsequent fine on that default can be resolved by simple determination of the nature of the contract entered into by the petitioners and the 17 individual parties.

III. Lease and licence under indian legislations

For the researcher to correctly make a case analysis, it is necessary that they explain the concepts related to it in a greater detail. For the current case in question, it is necessary that the researcher establish appropriate distinction between the two parallel concepts in question in the current case – lease and licence. Although lease and license have a lot in common in terms of their concept and their applicability, there exists a deep difference between the two concepts. The current head is divided into two heads, one dealing specifically with lease while the other dealing specifically with licence.

LEASE UNDER THE TRANDFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882²³ AND LICENCE UNDER THE EASEMENT ACT, 1882²⁴

Definition –

Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, deals with the concept of lease of immovable property. To better understand the concept of lease, one has to first understand the concept of immovable property. Immovable property is defined as –

“Immovable property shall include land, benefits to arise out of land, things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth.”²⁵

The definition explains that everything which either arises²⁶, or the benefit of whose arises out of land²⁷, or so attached to the land (cannot be severed) is Immovable Property. Although this definition in itself is sufficient it is important that the definition given under The Transfer of Property Act is also examined. According to the Transfer of Property Act -

“Immovable Property does not include standing timber, growing crops or grass.”²⁸

A plain reading of the definition displays that the definition is in-fact negative in nature. This implies that, everything exclusive of standing timber, growing crops and grass, included under the definition of immovable object, is an immovable property.

‘Lease’ is defined under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act –

“A lease of immoveable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms.”²⁹

Plain reading of the section allows the researcher to understand that under a lease, the mere right of enjoyment associated with the immovable property is transferred in exchange for a consideration which is periodically replenished. The parties to a leasing agreement are known as ‘Lessor’ and ‘Lessee’. The transferor is called a ‘lessor’ and the transferee is called a ‘lessee’.

‘License’ is defined under section 52 of the Easement Act, 1882³⁰ as –

“Where one person grants to another, or to a definite number of other persons, a right to do, or continue to do, in or upon the immovable property of the grantor, something which would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful, and such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, the right is called a license.”³¹

Plain reading of the section delivers that the licence is nothing but a permission to do something associated to the property. Unlike lease, there is no actual transfer of complete enjoyments, just a particular enjoyment associated with the property, which would otherwise constitute trespass, is transferred.

Essentials –

Although both the concepts have been aptly defined in their respective definitions, there still are a few key determinant factors which are essentially required to be fulfilled before conclusively assessing a document as either a lease or a license.

Under the definition of ‘lease’ there can be a set of essentials that can deduced – parties, subject matter, transfer of right, duration, consideration, acceptance(agreement) and mode.³²

1. Parties to a Lease – Every person, eligible for entering into a contract as under the Contract Act, is capable of entering into a lease agreement.³³ It is necessary that the Lessor has the actual or the implied right of transferring the property.³⁴ Further, a lease can also be granted to multiple parties, although without an express provision, all the lessees will be considered as a single tenant.³⁵

2. Subject Matter of the Lease – the subject matter of the lease has to be an immovable property as defined earlier as under the provisions of Section 3.³⁶ Therefore, per the definition, not only are land and other specified materials immovable property, but the benefits arising out of those are too.³⁷ Further, if a person is entering into a lease for a building premise, it automatically includes the site on which the premises exist as well.³⁸

3. Transfer of Right – under lease arrangement, there is a partial transfer of possession, thereafter the interest is transferred.³⁹ Therefore, under a lease, only right to partial estate transferred.⁴⁰ This is also known as ‘Demise’.

4. Duration of a Lease – A lease can only be either executed for a specified period of time, or for perpetuity. There are three broader classification of the types of leases on the basis of time period – time bound lease, periodic lease, or perpetual lease.⁴¹ Further, in case the landlord reserves the right to evict a tenant, the lease would automatically change into a tenant-landlord relationship.⁴²

5. Consideration – the enjoyment of property would come in exchange of some equivalent consideration. This consideration when paid as a lump sum is called a premium and when paid periodically is called a rent.⁴³

Under the definition of ‘Licence’ there can be a set of essentials that can deduced – existence of two different parties, grant, always useful, licence is granted over an immovable property. Although the courts have never gone into the essential details of each quantifying criterion for provision of Licence, courts have reiterated the essentials time and again.

In Pradeep Oil Corporation v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi⁴⁴, the apex court reiterated that a licence entered into by any individual, is unassignable, meaning it cannot be assigned, issues, or reassigned/reissued to anybody except the parties of the licencing agreement. Further, the court stated that mere name on licencing agreement does not give a right to the licensor to sue any stranger under his name. This essentially implies that a licensor cannot sue a third party with regards to any dispute arising out of the property he has acquired the licence for. Further, it stated that a licence is revokable at the option of the parties if and when they desire to do so. The revocability of a licence would complete rely on the grantor of the licence if and when the decides to do so. Additionally, in the case of Yazdani International Pvt. Ltd. v. Auroglobal Comtrade Pvt. Ltd.⁴⁵, the apex court held that mere licence, by its core and natural definition, does not create any interest in the property. It is merely an instrument which gives the grantor a right to use the property so licenced till the time stipulated in the licencing agreement. After the expiration of the licence period or revocation of such licence, the interest of the grantor in the property automatically ends the interest is reverted to the original interest holder/owner i.e., the grantee. In the case of Planet M Retail Ltd. v. Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.⁴⁶, the Delhi HC held that upon expiration of the period specified in the licencing agreement, the licensor automatically looses all interest in the property unless the licence is continued. The licensee ought to move out of the premises immediately after and there no longer exist any reason for the licensee to occupy the said premise since the premise automatically becomes the property of the grantor.

IV. Judgement analysis on the basis of the differences in licence and lease

Ultimately the Allahabad High Court, after listening to both the sides, passed its Order dated 26^th August 2008. Hon’ble Justice Janardan Sahai passed his judgment after listening to the contention of both the parties. Although a majority section of the judgement pertains to the provisions related to the Stamps Act, the court in its composite judgement has considered the issues of the document being a lease or a license in grave detail.

There are few established differences between a lease and a licence that is helpful in differentiating them from one another. For instance, the first difference is derivative of the fact that under a lease, there is an actual transfer of right whereas under a licence, merely a right of occupation and enjoyment is transferred.⁴⁷ If at all there is some kind of accumulation of interest on the property so transferred, such interest will be transferred in accordance with the lease whereas under a licensing agreement, such transfer is not permitted.⁴⁸ Since a licence is considered to be a personal privilege, the right so obtained via a licence is neither transferable nor heritable and would rather end within stipulated period or with death of the original licensor whereas the same is not the case with a lease, which is both heritable and transferable.⁴⁹ Under a leasing agreement, the interest in land, along with the property is also transferred, as opposed to under a licence where there is no real transfer of property itself.⁵⁰ A lease is an irrevocable agreement, which means that during a stipulated tenure, a lease cannot be revoked by any party, whereas a licence can be revoked, unless under certain circumstance, at the option of the licensor.⁵¹ While a lessee is permitted by law to maintain a suit in relation to the property under their name, no such right exists under a licencing agreement.⁵² While the lessee is an qualified lessee for a particular property, his interests in the property cannot be defeated via reassignment of the lease while the opposite is the case for a licence.⁵³ Finally, the death of either of the parties has no effect on a leasing agreement whereas a licensing agreement comes to an end with the death of any or both of the parties.⁵⁴

In the present case, the court, examined the contract as was entered into by the petitioners. The court realised that in the definition of a lease itself, the premise of consideration being a ‘periodical payment’ or a ‘premium’ has been discussed. Taking references form leading judgments such as Gopal Saran v. Satyanarayana⁵⁵, the periodic payment of such nature as described would, in probability, lead to a lease and not a licence. As the differences are illustrated above, the court relied on the same through the leading case of Chandy Varghese v. K Abdul Kadar⁵⁶, and described how each of those essential elements failed to point towards the fact that the contract entered into by the parties, under any circumstance be a licence. Ultimately in its judgment, the court determined that the contract entered into by the parties were in-fact leases and not licences and therefore should have been stamped accordingly.

V. Conclusion

While the right of enjoying ones property is something very fundamental to human existence, societal development has led it to be more complex and it is. In mere existence, the types kinds and forms of properties are overwhelming to look at let alone distinguishing between each on when the harder you look, they keep looking the same.

The current case in question throughout this research work was somewhat the same. While the petitioners entered into a contract of license with 17 individual people to use their rooftops for setting up and maintenance of cell sites. While the order by the Collector took time, it goes on to show the progressive responsibility that the government has by taking due cognizance of the facts at hand and correctly analysing the issue. While the default in the stamp duty was of no harm, the aspect of passing up lease deeds under the pretext of licences is something that should have been gravely condemned. This goes on to show a lack of professional legal attitude of the petitioner’s side in framing and circulation of the said document.

Thus, due cognizance of the fact of fault in the documentation and the irregular levying of the stamp duty is something that people entering into contracts of such grave binding natures should understand and should inculcate a part of their basic due diligence.

*****

VI. References

1. Sushanth Salian, History of the Removal of the Fundamental Right to Property, CENTRE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY p. 232. (2005) https://ccs.in/internship_papers/2002/25.pdf

2. The Transfer Of Property Act, No. 4 of 1882, INDIACODE

3. Easement Act, No. 5 of 1882, INDIA CODE

4. The Indian Stamp Act, No. 2 of 1899, INDIA CODE

5. Dr Poonam Pradhan, The Transfer of Property Act (ED. 13, LexisNexis, 2018)

6. Dr Avatar Singh, Textbook On The Transfer Of Property Act (ED. 5, LexisNexis, 2015)

7. H.R. Sharma, Liberalising the Lease Market, 41(8) ECO. & POL. WEEKLY (2006)

8. Rekha Panchal, Technical Aspects of Aircraft Lease (Part II of II), 4 CT. UNCOURT 11 (2017).

9. Mitali Yadav and Sahil Asthana, Right of a Lessee to retain possession of premises subsequent to determination of lease by efflux of time, MANUPATRA (Last Accessed February 23, 2021)

10. Prof (Dr) Harpreet Kaur, The Transfer of Property Act. (Ed 6, LexisNexis, 2021)

11. Yamini Rajora, Definition of Licence and Granting of Licence, ACADEMIKE. (30th April 2015, Last visited 20th April 2021)

12. C.F. Alvares, Lease and Licence, 2 SCC(JOUR) 1 (1972)

13. Achal Gupta, Licence and its Revocation, SCCONLINE. (21^st February 2021) (Last visited 22^nd April, 2021)

*****

Footnotes

1. Author is a student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, India.

2. Sushanth Salian, History of the Removal of the Fundamental Right to Property, CENTRE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY p. 232. (2005) https://ccs.in/internship_papers/2002/25.pdf ↩

3. Id. ↩

4. The Transfer Of Property Act, No. 4 of 1882, INDIACODE ↩

5. Easement Act, No. 5 of 1882, INDIA CODE ↩

6. The Indian Stamp Act, No. 2 of 1899, INDIA CODE ↩

7. Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors 6 ALL LJ 748 (2008) ↩

8. Supra 6 ↩

9. Supra 6. ↩

10. Supra 6 ↩

11. Dr Poonam Pradhan, The Transfer of Property Act (ED. 13, LexisNexis, 2018) ↩

12. Dr Avatar Singh, Textbook On The Transfer Of Property Act (ED. 5, LexisNexis, 2015) ↩

13. Prof (Dr) Harpreet Kaur, The Transfer of Property Act. (Ed 6, LexisNexis, 2021) ↩

14. Supra 6 ↩

15. H.R. Sharma, Liberalising the Lease Market, 41(8) ECO. & POL. WEEKLY (2006) ↩

16. Rekha Panchal, Technical Aspects of Aircraft Lease (Part II of II), 4 CT. UNCOURT 11 (2017). ↩

17. Mitali Yadav and Sahil Asthana, Right of a Lessee to retain possession of premises subsequent to determination of lease by efflux of time, MANUPATRA (Last Accessed February 23, 2021) ↩

18. Yamini Rajora, Definition of Licence and Granting of Licence, ACADEMIKE. (30^th April 2015, Last visited 20^th April 2021) https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/definition-license/#_edn2 ↩

19. C.F. Alvares, Lease and Licence, 2 SCC(JOUR) 1 (1972) http://www.supremecourtcases.com/index2.php?o ption=com_content&itemid=5&do_pdf=1&id=615 ↩

20. Achal Gupta, Licence and its Revocation, SCCONLINE. (21^st February, 2021) (Last visited 22^nd April, 2021) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/02/27/license/ ↩

21. Supra 6 ↩

22. Indian Telegraph Act, No. 13 of 1885, INDAI CODE. ↩

23. Supra 3 ↩

24. Supra 4 ↩

25. §Article 3(26), The General Clauses Act, No. 10 of 1897, INDIA CODE ↩

26. Punnayya v. Venkatappa, AIR Mad. 343 (1926) ↩

27. Shiv Dayal V. Pattu Lal, 140 Ind Cas 491 (1933) ↩

28. Supra 3, see § Section 3. ↩

29. Supra 3, see § Section 105 ↩

30. Supra 4 ↩

31. Id. See § Section 52 ↩

32. Supra 11 ↩

33. Id. ↩

34. Rye v. Rye, AC 496 (1962) ↩

35. Motilal v. Kartar Singh, 11 ILR Lah. 427 (1930) ↩

36. Supra 22 ↩

37. Id ↩

38. Annick Chaymotti Devyani v. Prem Mohini Mehra, 1 Ren CR (Del) 709 (2003) ↩

39. Supra 26 ↩

40. Girdhari Singh v. Megh Lal Pandey, 48 CAL. 440 (1897) ↩

41. Supra 26 ↩

42. Chittor Chegaiah v. Pedda Jeeyanagr Mutt, 3 SCC 776 (2010) ↩

43. CIT, Assam, Tripura and Manipur v. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd., 3 SCR 811 (1965) ↩

44. Pradeep Oil Corporation v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Anr, 1 SCC 455 (2001) ↩

45. Yazdani International Pvt. Ltd. v. Auroglobal Comtrade Pvt. Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 11229 of 2013. ↩

46. Planet M Retail Ltd. v. Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 488 of 2013 ↩

47. Supra 11 ↩

48. Supra 12 ↩

49. Supra 10 ↩

50. Id ↩

51. Id ↩

52. Supra 18 ↩

53. Supra 10 ↩

54. Supra 12 ↩

55. Gopal Saran v. Satyanarayana, 3 SCC 56 (1989) ↩

56. Chandy Varghese v. K Abdul Kadar, 5 SCC 364 (2003) ↩