Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Mohan Lal Vinod Kumar, Commission ... vs Kundan Lal Son Of Sayian Ram, Resident Of ... on 22 July, 2011

Arjun Lal vs Kundan Lal on 10 October, 2012

10. Learned counsel Shri L.R.Mehta further contended that the lease hold rights until expiry of 99 years from Samvat Year 1975 ( equivalent to English Calender Year 1918) devolved upon the purchaser-plaintiff-Arjun Lal, therefore, there was no question of any attornment in favour of Nathdwara Temple Board by the defendant- tenant-Kundan Lal as even with the enactment of Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959 the actions already done were saved under `Repeal & Savings Clause' under Section 38 of the said Act of 1959. He also urged that even though the earlier eviction suit filed by Mohan Lal against the defendant-tenant-Kundan Lal had failed with the dismissal of second appeal of the landlord-Mohan Lal by the learned Single Judge of this Court being S.B.Civil Second Appeal No. 431/72 (Mohan Lal vs. Kundan Lal & ors.) on 14/2/1975 (per Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.M.Lodha, as he then was) vide Ex.A/3, it would not preclude the purchaser - Arjun Lal to file fresh eviction suit under the SB Civil Second Appeal No. 95/90 L.Rs of Arjun Lal vs. L.Rs of Kundan Lal Judgment dated 10/10/2012 13/49 Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 on the ground of personal and bonafide necessity & other grounds as the earlier suit filed by Mohan Lal was dismissed, which was filed on the ground of subletting only.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document

Barclays Investments & Loans (India) ... vs Amarjeet Singh on 24 August, 2011

Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied on the case law of BDPL Investment (Pvt) Ltd. v. Maple Leave Trading International ( Pvt. CC No. : 20503/10 Barclays Investment & Loans India Ltd. v. Amarjeet Singh 5/11 Ltd.)129(2006) DLT 94; Krishna Janardan Bhat v. Dattaraya G. Hegde 2008 AIR (SC) 1325; Gopan v. Tonny Varghese 2009(1) DCR 314; M/s Collage Culture v. Apparel Export Promotion Council 2007[4] JCC[NI] 388; K. N. Beena v. Muniyappan Criminal appeal no. 1066 of 2001; Thakur Lal v. Ram Adhar 1968 A.L.J. 61; Chacjichan T. K. v. P. P. Paul 2009 (2) DCR 506; Ramakrishna Urban Co­operative Credit Society Ltd. v. Rajendra Bhagchand 2011 ACD 97 (BOM) to argue that as these are security cheques, the accused is not liable for the offence u/s 138 of the Act. Other cheques of the same series have already been cleared in the year 2008. Hence, it is argued that how could the accused be holding these three cheques upto the year 2010. He has argued that the date on cheques is filled by way of stamp and the date on all three cheques is the same. Further, he submits that the cheques in question are not filled by the accused. If the mode of payment by way of ECS, no counter receipt is placed on record that the cheques were received against the ECS. It is argued that no written intimation of dishonour of ECS was given to the accused and no such document is filed on record.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohan Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 3 November, 2025

"I) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties particularly Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 to restrain Opposite Party No. - 4 and 5 for creating unnecessary hinderance in the peaceful possession of the petitioner in the land plot no. 357 admeasuring area 0.4637 hectare situated at Village Mahariya, H/o Kutubpur, Pargana and Tehsil Sandila, District Hardoi in pursuance of judgement and order dated 09.04.2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 154 of 2003; Mohan Lal Vs. Ram Adhar and another (contained as Annexure No. - 1), in the interest of justice."
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1