Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.21 seconds)
Documents citing T.R. Rajagopalan vs Usha Rajagopalan on 24 January, 1997

R. Sankaranarayanan vs Anandhavalli on 25 March, 1998

In Rajagopalan v. Usha Rajagopalan , a Single Judge of this Court has taken the view that psychomotor epilepsy is not a ground for divorce. The learned Judge found that psycho-motor epilepsy would give an experience of a brief clouding of consciousness during the time of which some meaningless act may be performed by the affected person. Considering that, the learned Judge took the view that it was not the disease of unsound mind. The said case is not helpful to the respondent.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Wind World India Limited vs Indian Renewable Energy Development ... on 12 August, 2024

The Division Bench of this Court of which one of us is a party (Radhakrishnan, J.), in Rajagopalan v. Gopalan [Rajagopalan v. Gopalan, (2004) 1 KLT (SN) 54] interpreting Section 11(4)(v) took the view that occupation in the context of Section 11(4) means only physical occupation, which requires further explanation. Occupation in the context of Section 11(4)(v) means actual user. If the landlord could establish that in a given case even if the tenant is in physical possession of the premises, the premises is not being used, that is a good ground for eviction under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. Section 11(4) uses the words "put the landlord in possession" and not "occupation", but Section 11(4)(v) uses the words "the tenant ceases to occupy". In Section 11(4)(v) in the case of landlord the emphasis is on "possession" but in the case of tenant the emphasis is on "occupation". The word "occupy" has a distinct meaning so far as the Rent Act is concerned when pertains to tenant, that is, possession with user.'"
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document
1