Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 54 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Jamnalal & Ors vs Radheshyam on 18 April, 2000

Seth Manak Chand vs Nemi Chand on 8 September, 2022

(a) of the Act. The ratio of the case of Jamnalal Vs. Radheshyam (2000)4SCC380 =2000(2)MPLJ385 (supra) is altogether different and is not applicable to the present case. Accordingly, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to decree of eviction on the ground under section 12(1)(a) of the Act, because no foundation is there in the plaint for seeking decree of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - D D Bansal - Full Document

Devendra Kumar Sharma vs Deepak Jain on 15 July, 2010

5. Shri Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant, after taking me through the pleadings and the evidence of the case firstly argued the matter at length but in view of the facts that the decree granted by the trial court under section 12(1)(p) of the Act was not assailed in the argument before the first appellate court, as appeared from the impugned judgment and, also in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Jamnalal and others Vs. Radheshyam (2000) 4 SCC 380 answering the question with respect of the ground enumerated under section 12(1)(a) of the Act, on making some query, in response of the same, counsel instead to argue further on merits for admission said that in any case if this court comes to the conclusion that the present appeal does not involve any substantial question of law then in such circumstance, by adopting some lenient view, period of six months be extended to the appellant for vacating the disputed premises and prayed for admission by allowing this appeal.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Moolchand (Decd.) Thr. Lrs Smt. ... vs Gulabchand (Decd.) Thr. Lrs Smt. ... on 1 November, 2023

Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the principles laid down in the case of Jamnalal (Supra) do not apply to the facts of the present case, as the principles therein can be applied with prospective effect and not retrospectively. Hence, no substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A K Paliwal - Full Document

Smt. Bhagwati Tiwari And Anr. vs Makhanlal Yadav And 2 Ors. on 31 March, 2008

In such circumstances, it is apparent that initially the quantum and the rate of rent, both were disputed, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex court in the matter of Jamnalal v. Radheshyamv , the provision of Section 13(1) of the Act was arrested and the respondents were bound to deposit such sum only after passing the interim order , on passing such order same has been complied with as said above, therefore, it could not be said that that respondents have committed any default in depositing the rent. Hence the decree under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act could not be passed in favour of the appellants.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - U C Maheshwari - Full Document

Rajaram vs Mukesh Kumar on 30 July, 2010

12. So far the concurrent findings of the courts below holding the appellant to be defaulter in payment of outstanding rent and also the recurring rent and, in such premises, the decree under section 12(1)(a) of the Act is concerned, firstly such concurrent finding are based on appreciation of the evidence and the same does not appear to be perverse and, secondly, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Jamnalal and others Vs. Radheshyam (2000) 4 SCC 380, such findings, in the available set of proved facts, could not be interfered under section 100 of the CPC and, in such premises, this appeal could not be admitted by framing any substantial questions of law on this point.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Kanta Salaria vs Prakash Chandra on 21 January, 2011

In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court governing the field of the involved question, the case law of this court cited on behalf of the appellant in the matter of Gurbachansingh Vs. Vimlabai-AIR 1993 MP 135 and in the matter of ManoharLal GopiLal Pande Vs. Dr. Abdul Mazid Khan- 1997(1) MPLJ-232 are not helping them because the cited cases were decided by this court 13 long before giving the interpretation to section 13 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act,1961 by the Apex Court in the matter of Jamnalal (supra). In the aforesaid premises, I have not found any circumstance or substance in this appeal giving rise to any question of law rather than substantial question of law assailing the decree passed under section 12(1)(a) of the Act or to consider any question for condoning the delay in depositing the rent under section 13 of the Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next