Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Swaraj Kumar vs Arvind Kumar on 27 May, 2005

Praveen Kumar vs Brij Bhushan Sharma And Ors. on 1 March, 2007

In support of his aforesaid contentions, counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pratap Rai Tanwani and Anr. v. Uttam Chand and Ors. 2004 (57) ALR 444; Shiv Swamp Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, 1999 (3) AWC 2106; Dhanna Lal v. Kalawati Bai 2003 ACJ 38; India Umbrella Mfg. Co. v. B. Agrawal ; Ranjit Singh v. Ravi Prakash and Anr. 2004 (6) SCC 682 : 2004 (2) AWC 1721 (SC) and decisions of this Court in Abdul Gqffar Khan v. 1st Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr and Anr. 1984 (1) ARC 293; Sahabuddin v. Mohd. Yameen Quresi 2006 (4) AWC 3685 and Swaraj Kumar v. Arvind Kumar 2005(4) AWC 3387.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Tiwari - Full Document

Shahabuddin Alias Sabu vs Mohd. Yameen Qureshi And Anr. on 17 July, 2006

4. Lastly it is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Raj Rani Mehrotra v. IInd Additional District Judge and Ors. 1980 ARC 311 and the decision of this Court in Pratap Narain Tandon v. Abdul Mukatadir , and the decision of this Court in Swaraj Kumar (Sri) v. Arvind Kumar , to the effect that the appellate authority has not considered the question of part release of the accommodation in dispute so that the principle of 'live and let live' may be followed by the landlord and tenant both, may be accommodated in the same accommodation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Rafi Ullah vs Dr. Om Hari And Anr. on 19 September, 2006

In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Pratap Narain Tandon v. Abdul Mukhatadir 2005 (1) ARC 555 : 2005 (1) AWC 921 : Swaraj Kumar v. Arvind Kumar 2005 (II) ARC 243 : 2005 (4) AWC 3387 and Prakash Babu and Ors. v. IInd Additional District Judge, Aligarh and Ors. 1988 (II) ARC 357, wherein it has been held that even if the plea of Rule 16(1)(d) has not been raised before the courts below, it is mandatory on the part of the Prescribed Authority as well an appellate court/authority to consider the same and pass orders accordingly. In all the aforesaid three cases, matter was pertaining to non-residential accommodation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - R Tiwari - Full Document
1