Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Ashokkumar Manilal vs Gandhi Vrajilal Gabrrulal Dessa on 8 February, 1995

Rajni Sangwan vs S. Kulwant Singh on 11 April, 2018

In order to bolster the case of the petitioner on this aspect, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment of Ashok Kumar Manilal Vs. Gandhi Vrajilal Gabrrulal Dessa, Gujarat High Court dated 08.02.1995, Lalshankar Mulji Joshi Vs. Kantilal Mohanlal Parikh And Anr, Bombay High Court dated 14.10.1971, Deepak Nijhawan and Anr. Vs. RN Abrol, Delhi High Court dated 23.12.2015, Raj Rani Vs. Gian Chand, Delhi High Court dated 25.02.1986.
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shantaben Harilal Brahmbhatt vs Hasmukhlal Maneklal Chokshi on 12 January, 2001

13.4 Learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord also sought to rely upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shah Ashokkumar Manilal v. Gandhi Vrajilal Gabrrulal Deesa, reported at AIR 1995 Guj. 161. In my opinion, this decision would be of no assistance to the landlord since it is on an entirely different issue altogether. This decision lays down that the statutory notice under Section 12 must contain a demand of the arrears which must be precise and not vague, but found (on the facts of the case) that where the notice clearly specifies the date from which the rent was due, it could not be said to be a demand which is vague and imprecise particularly where the tenant has not pleaded that he was misled by the amount set out in the notice. It was under those circumstances that the notice was found to be valid. In the instant case, it is not the vagueness of the demand on which the validity of the suit notice is questioned.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Mohammad Jamil Alimiya Shaikh vs Mohammad Ishaq Sirajbhai on 2 December, 2025

27/01/2014. It is shown that the defendants have deposited the due rent amount after first date of the hearing of the suit. Therefore, the defendants are liable to vacate the suit premises under section- 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act."held that in this judgment that, para-2. "In Bapulal's case (Supra), the factual position was such as would fall in the aforesaid ratio settled by this Court in that case. In that case notice indicated monthly rent but it did not set out the date from Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/20/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined which it was due or the amount that was due.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1