Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Kamla Rani And Ors. vs Texmaco Ltd. on 29 January, 2007

M/S S. Chand & Co vs Sh. Jay Kant Mishra on 19 November, 2011

17. The present petitions were filed u/s 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act and Section 22 of DRC Act. Under the provisions of both the abovesaid sections the petitioners have to prove that the respondent was working with the petitioner no. 1 company and let out the suit premises to the respondent as its employee and the respondent is no longer in employment with the petitioner no. 1. It is not in dispute that the respondent has joined the petitioner no. 1 company in the year 1992. It is also not in dispute that the respondent was in E­12/09 & E­68/09 Page 21 of 32 //22// the employment of the petitioner no. 1 in the year 1998. The sale deed Ex. PW­1/4 also proves that petitioner no. 2 purchased the suit property. Petitioner no. 1 is merely claiming its landlordship qua the suit premises as allotted it to the respondent being its employee to live alongwith his family. It is well settled that landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership u/s 22 and u/s 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act. It is held in Kamla Rani & Ors. Vs. Texmaco Ltd. (supra) that u/s 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act ownership is not relevant for the reason a person may be landlord without being an owner.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S S. Chand & Co vs Sh. Jay Kant Mishra on 19 November, 2011

17. The present petitions were filed u/s 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act and Section 22 of DRC Act. Under the provisions of both the abovesaid sections the petitioners have to prove that the respondent was working with the petitioner no. 1 company and let out the suit premises to the respondent as its employee and the respondent is no longer in employment with the petitioner no. 1. It is not in dispute that the respondent has joined the petitioner no. 1 company in the year 1992. It is also not in dispute that the respondent was in E­12/09 & E­68/09 Page 21 of 32 //22// the employment of the petitioner no. 1 in the year 1998. The sale deed Ex. PW­1/4 also proves that petitioner no. 2 purchased the suit property. Petitioner no. 1 is merely claiming its landlordship qua the suit premises as allotted it to the respondent being its employee to live alongwith his family. It is well settled that landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership u/s 22 and u/s 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act. It is held in Kamla Rani & Ors. Vs. Texmaco Ltd. (supra) that u/s 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act ownership is not relevant for the reason a person may be landlord without being an owner.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

1. Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs State Of Gujrat & Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 508 ... on 27 January, 2022

12.4 The defence of the accused side considered in view of above-cited case laws. Now, coming to the second issue at hand that there was no legal enforceable debt the accused has first of all just verbally denied the Loan Agreement without adducing any evidence to prove that the agreement was forged and fabricated. The accused in order to prove that Loan agreement is forged argued during Final Arguments that the execution of Loan Agreement Ex. CW1/1 was not witnessed before Notary Public as date of signatures of the accused and witnesses and attestation by notary are different. He has substantiated his argument by relying upon judgements Smt. Kamla Rani and Ors vs Texmaco Ltd. AIR 2007 Delhi 147. But this is not a case where the Loan agreement in is issue. The signature of accused on one page is dated 15.08.2013 while on other page of Loan agreement is 15.08.2012 which creates a doubt over the intentions of the accused. The dates below the signatures of witnesses which were marked as Pt. A and Pt. B Ex. CW1/1 are 15/08/2013 which creates a doubt over the authenticity of the Loan agreement but for the sake of repetition it is stated that the Loan agreement is not in issue in the present case. He could have called handwriting expert to disprove his signatures on the Loan agreement which he didn't do. Even if it is accepted that there is discrepancy in the dates of attestation by notary and signatures of the accused and witnesses but that by itself does not rebut the presumption under RAHUL Digitally signed by RAHUL JAIN JAIN Date: 2022.01.27 16:15:12 +05'30' Section 139 NI Act and does not prove that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt. Rather the accused in his defence stated to have had financial transaction with the complainant with regard to some property deal and had issued the cheques. This all the more fructifies the presumption that the cheques were issued for a legally enforceable debt.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Radhika Choudhary vs M/S Payal Visions Pvt. Ltd. on 14 March, 2011

9. On the other hand Shri Sudhir Nandrajog, learned senior counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that no fault could be found with the impugned judgment of the trial Court since very rightly Order XII Rule 6 CPC was pressed into service by the plaintiff to cut short the litigation as far as the relief of possession was concerned. It was also submitted that once the relationship of landlord and tenant and receipt of notice of termination of its tenancy was admitted by the defendant there remained nothing to be adjudicated by the trial Court as far as the relief of possession sought for by the plaintiff was concerned and so the trial Court was fully justified in passing the decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff. As far as the plea of the defendant that the suit was barred under the Provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act is concerned the same being totally frivolous has been rightly ignored by the trial Court. In support of these submissions learned senior cited before me a bunch of judgments of this Court wherein decrees for possession had been passed in favour of the landlords in view of the admissions made by the RFA 81 OF 2009 Page 8 of 16 tenants that they had taken the suit premises on lease and that notice of termination of their tenancies had also been received by them and the rent was more that Rs.3500/- p.m. In one of those relied upon judgments a plea similar to the one taken by the defendant in the present case viz. the suit property was governed by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act was also taken by the tenant but rejecting that plea this Court had passed the decree of possession by invoking Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Those judgments are reported as 2002 (61) DRJ 676, "Jasmer Singh Sarna and Ors Vs. Electronics Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd."; 79 (1999) DLT 750, "Durgeshwari Devi Vs. International Development Research Centre"; 112 (2004) DLT82, "Bhartia Industries Ltd. & Anr.Vs. Rajiv Saluja"; 104 (2003) DLT 151 (DB), "Delhi Jal Board Vs. Surendra P. Malik"; 139 (2007) DLT 61, "Kamla Rani & Ors. Vs. Texmaco Ltd."; 130 (2006) DLT 667, "Vishal Builders P. Ltd. Vs. DDA & Ors."; 156 (2009) DLT 129, "Nilima Gupta Vs. Yogesh Saroha & Ors."; 65 (1997) DLT 533, "Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Air India"; 74 (1998) DLT RFA 81 OF 2009 Page 9 of 16 476, "Abdul Hamid & Ors. Vs. Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors.".
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - P K Bhasin - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next