Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) By Lrs vs Chaganlal Sundarji And Co on 13 October, 1999

Mohd. Ismail vs M/S Ruby Engineering Works on 7 February, 2020

(iii) Similarly, in Raghunath G. Panhale Vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & E­77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 14/18 Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1 it was held that the word "reasonable" connotes that the requirement or the need is not fanciful or unreasonable but need not also be a "compelling" or "absolute" or "dire necessity". A reasonable and bonafide requirement was held to be something in between a mere desire or wish on the one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity on the other hand.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Savitri Devi (Through Lrs) vs Mrs. Santosh Bhutiani on 26 February, 2020

(3) Similarly, in Raghunath G. Panhale Vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1 it was held that the word "reasonable" connotes that the requirement or the need is not fanciful or unreasonable but need not also be a "compelling" or "absolute" or "dire necessity". A reasonable and bonafide requirement was held to be something in between a mere desire or wish on the one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity on the other E­78924/16 17/20 hand.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vidyawati vs Shri Gautam Mahajan & Ors on 21 August, 2020

21. Moreover, bona fidé requirement under the DRC Act does not imply a situation of 'dire' or 'distressed' necessity. Reference in this regard may made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) by LRs vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co.6 Consider a scenario where a landlord's dependant is not in dire straits and may even be in a position to purchase or rent premises, whether for residential or commercial purposes, from her own resources. However, a landlord may have suitable premises available for residential or commercial purposes; and may wish to give that premises to the dependant, so as to obviate the need for the dependant to spend her resources to purchase or rent other premises. The landlord may not want the dependant to needlessly deploy her own 6 (1999) 8 SCC 1 : paras 6,11 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC. REV 349/2018 page 25 of 31 resources to buy or rent premises from a third-party, while leaving the landlord's premises in the use of an incumbent tenant. In the opinion of this court, even this kind of requirement would fall within the concept of bona fidé requirement of the landlord or a family member dependant on the landlord; and a tenant cannot contend that while the tenant should continue to enjoy the landlord's premises, the landlord's dependant should acquire her own premises through other resources. Any other view would mean that while deciding bona fidé requirement of a landlord for a dependant, the independent resources of the dependant would also have to be considered in detail before accepting the plea of bona fidé requirement.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 7 - A J Bhambani - Full Document
1   2 Next