Jeet Mal And Jaiwat Mal vs Teomal S/O Sadhu Ram on 31 July, 1985
The decision in Sriram Pasricha's case (supra) was relied upon in Subhendu Prasad Roy's case (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.51 seconds)Documents citing
Subhendu Prosad Roy Choudhury And Ors. vs Kamala Bala Roy Choudhury And Ors. on 1 February, 1978
Bappi Paul vs Ranjan Paul on 18 August, 2000
In Krishna Roy Choudhury v. Ranjit Roy Choudhury and in Pranami Dutta Mazumdar v. Prasanta Kumar Choudhury, (supra), the following principle governing the general power of transfer of the High Court under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 laid down by the Supreme Court in India Overseas Bank, Madras v. Chemical Construction Co. & Others, AIR 1979 SC 1514, has been quoted :-
Pawan Kumar More vs Shri Radha Krishan Poddar (Deceased) on 13 February, 2020
In the case of Subhendu Prosad (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India reiterated that even assuming the quit notice
was not given on behalf of one of the coowner landlords, the decision in
RCT No. 30279/2016 Pawan Kumar More &ors. vs Radha Kishan Poddar
RCT No. 30280/2016 V.C. Jain vs Radha Kishan Poddar Page 21 of 41 pages
RCT No. 30372/2016 Radha Kishan Poddar vs V.C. Jain
RCT No. 30376/2016 Radha Kishan Poddar vs Pawan Kumar More &ors.
the case of Sriram Pasricha (supra) would show that yet the notice was
good and valid.
Shri Dev Raj vs Smt Saroj Singhal on 4 October, 2021
In the case of Subhendu Prosad vs Kamla Bala Roy
Choudhary, AIR 1978 SC 835, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
reiterated that even assuming the quit notice was not given on behalf of one
of the co-owner landlords, the decision in the case of Sriram Pasricha
(supra) would show that yet the notice was good and valid.
All R/O 16/19 vs M/S Solace Exports Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 Of 14 ... on 13 April, 2023
5.4 In the case of Subhendu Prosad vs Kamla Bala Roy Choudhary, AIR 1978 SC 835, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated that even assuming the quit notice was not given on behalf of one of the coowner landlords, the decision in the case of Sriram Pasricha (supra) would show that yet the notice was good and valid.
Amarnath Gupta vs Smt. Usha Sharma on 5 May, 2023
11. The dictum in Sri Ram Pasricha (supra) was followed in Subhendu Prosad Roy Choudhury and others Vs. Kamala Bala Roy Choudhury and others, AIR 1978 SC 835 in the context of quit notice given by one co-owner (landlord) to tenant and the Court said:
N.M. Engineer And Others vs Narendra Singh Virdi And Another on 12 July, 1994
8. The first appellant is a co-owner and is entitled to give notice. Such a notice valid as laid down in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and Ors. , Subhendu Prosad Roy Choudhury and Ors. v. Kamala Bala Roy Choudhury and Ors. . Even otherwise as Collector of rent, he is entitled to issue notice. T notice is not challenged on the ground that more rent is demanded or rent of six month was not due.
N.M.Engineer vs Narendra Singh Virdi on 18 July, 1994
8. The first appellant is a co-owner and is entitled to
give notice. Such a notice is valid as laid down in Sri Ram
Pasricha v. Jagannathl and Subhendu Prosad Roy Choudhury v.
Kamala Bala Roy Choudhury2. Even otherwise as collector of
rent, he is entitled to issue notice. The notice is not
challenged on the ground that more rent is demanded or rent
of six months was not due.
Smt. Ganga Bala Ghosh & Ors vs Mira Patra & Ors on 14 May, 2014
On the point of limitation it was submitted that, since the decree
passed in Title Suit No. 54 of 1962 was a nullity there was no question
of limitation. He relied on 1990 Volume 1 Calcutta Law Journal
page 234 (Sri Prohlad Roy v. Sunil Kumar Roy alias Sasadhar Roy
& Ors.) in that regard. It was submitted that, the transfer made in
favour of the defendants in the instant suit was not out of legal
necessity and as such the same was invalid.