Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) By Lrs vs Chaganlal Sundarji And Co on 13 October, 1999

Kabita Mukherjee vs Padam Chand Banthia Also Known As P.C. ... on 2 August, 2001

This is also undisputed that she wants to keep her ailing brother for treatment. The word 'requirement' coupled with word 'reasonable' mean that it is something more than the desire which may not be compelling or absolute or dire necessity. It is honest but not fanciful or unreasonable. See 1999(8) Judgment Today 219(SC) (Raghunath-G Panhale (deceased) Ors. v. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co.).
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A Lala - Full Document

Debabrata Gupta vs Nanigopal Bhattacharjee on 28 January, 2005

35. The citations made by the learned Counsel for the appellant are not relevant in the context. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant reported in AIR 1999 SC 2507 (supra) is not relevant in the context of the present case inasmuch as this decision referred to, is based upon the Rent Control Legislation of the other State and that is not pari materia with West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sri Parimal Ghosh vs Sri Debabrata Ghosh And Ors. on 1 February, 2002

In the case of Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdiai Singh Mann (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. , Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) by L.Rs v. Chaganlal Surdarjt & Co. and Hamida & Ors. v. Md. Khalil , the apex Court dealt with the question whether the finding of the lower appellate Court on facts can be altered or not in the second appeal by the High Court. It transpires from those reported decisions of the apex Court that ordinarily it is not open to the High Court in second appeal to Interfere with the finding of fact unless such a finding is based on conjectures, surmises or on some evidence not admissible in law. It has further been laid down that where a finding of fact stands vitiated on wrong test and on the basis of assumptions and conjectures and resultantly there is an element of perversity involved therein, the High Court will be within its Jurisdiction to deal with the issue, but in that event such a fact is required to be brought to light by the High Court, clearly and the Judgment should also be categorical as to the issue of perversity vis-a-vis the concept of justice. In the present case, I have already mentioned that there is a concurrent finding on the point of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff respondents for the suit premises and there is nothing to indicate that such a concurrent finding was in anyway tainted with perversity on wrong test.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1