Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Janardan Swarup And Ors. vs Devi Prasad And Ors. on 30 April, 1958

Janardan vs Meena Devi And 2 Others on 27 February, 2025

3. As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, the writ petition is being disposed of, at the admission stage, without calling for counter affidavit or issuing notice to private respondents, with a direction upon Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ballia to decide the temporary injunction application (6-C2) filed in Suit No. 888 of 2023 (Janardan vs. Meena Devi and others), in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R R Agarwal - Full Document

Smt. Vishnawati vs Bhagwat Vithu Chowdhry on 26 February, 1969

In regard to the permission, he too held that nothing had been shown as to how the permission was illegal or without jurisdiction and that so far as the ground that it was obtained against one of the co-tenants only was concerned, the decision in the case Janardan Swarup v. Debi Prasad, 1958 All LJ 573 = (AIR 1959 All 33) showed that the permission obtained against one co-tenant was good against the entire body of the class designated as 'the tenant'. The plea based on an alleged stay order by the State Government was not seriously pressed in the appeal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Suraya Properties Private Ltd. vs Bimalendu Nath Sarkar on 20 March, 1964

Mr. Ghose referred to Section 112 of the Transfer of Property Act in support of his argument, but in our opinion that section has no application to the facts of the present case. Mr. Ghose also referred to the case of Janardan Swamp v. Devi Prasad, , decided by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. But that decision has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case the suit for eviction was instituted on the termination of the tenancy by a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the suit was dismissed because on the facts of the case their Lordships held that the notice to quit had been waived Their Lordships observed as follows:
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Edward Keventers (Successors) Pvt. ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Etc. on 7 February, 1983

He relied upon Janardan Swarup and Ors. v. Devi Prasad and Ors., . Even if there is no waiver, the forfeiture should not be permitted to operate in respect of the entire area of the lease. Only an area of 16,000 sq. ft. can at best be said to have been misutilised out of the total of 10 lac sq. ft. and since that portion of land is separable, relief may be granted by allowing only a partial forfeiture that is in respect of the area occupied by the huts and consequent apportionment of rent.
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1