Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Jamna Lal vs Kanhaiya Lal on 25 November, 1982

Rajendra Kumar vs Jagdish Gehlot And Ors on 24 July, 2025

21. It was further observed that as far as the case of "Jamna Lal v. Kanhaiya Lal", (supra) the issue pertained to the fact that although the amount of rent had been deposited within the statutory period, the interest thereon was not paid within the prescribed time. In that case, the petitioner-defendant filed an application requesting the respondents-plaintiffs to provide details regarding the calculation of interest. Notably, no application for extension of time was filed. The Single Judge observed that since the petitioner-defendant was contesting the computation of interest and had moved an application to challenge the award and calculation thereof, the tenant was entitled to an extension of time for depositing the interest. It was accordingly held that the decision was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where no application for extension of time was made.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prahlad Rai&Anr; vs Madhusudana Acharya&Ors; on 11 December, 2017

In Jamna Lal vs. Kanhaiya Lal (supra) this Court held that, it must be understood that it is not a right of the tenant to obtain such as extension for deposit of provisional rent but the Court has discretion can only be exercised in a judicial manner. This, I may add, as non-deposit of arrears of provisional rent or subsequent rent month to month within time directed by the Court or extended time, entails crystallization of the (12 of 13) [CW-20166/2017] landlord's, statutory right to have the defence of the tenant struck off.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

Harikishan vs Smt. Shantidevi on 4 September, 1987

Learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore urged that the decisions rendered in the matrimonial cases should have been given due effect by the learned Magistrate. In an application Under Section 125, Cr. P.C. on behalf of a child, paternity has to be established and when there is a decree for judicial separation passed on the basis that after soleminzation of marriage, the wife had sexual intercourse with some other person other than her husband alleging that there had been no cohabitation between the spouses and the child is not his; then it should have been found by the learned Magistrate that the applicant is not the father of the minor daughter Asha Kumari and as such he is not liable for maintenance. Learned Counsel also urged that the decree for judicial separation having become final, .the finding arrived at believing the evidence of the petitioner that the petitioner had never cohabitation with the respondent from the time of the marriage and the child is not his, is binding on the criminal court and it was the obligatory duty of the Court in these circumstances to have cancelled the order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nand Lal v. Kanhaiya Lal . It has been observed in this case as under:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1