Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (1.11 seconds)
Documents citing Laxmi Ram Pawar vs Sitabai Balu Dhotre & Anr on 1 December, 2010

K.R.Kirubakaran vs G.Lakshmi on 30 March, 2016

(iii) In the decision reported in 2015 (4) CTC 159 (Ambika and another v. M.Shamshad and another), the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2011 (1) SCC 356 (Laxmi Ram Pawar v. Sitabai Balu Dhotre and another) and Section 29 of the Act have been considered. It was held that Section 29 of the Act is a bar if no sanction is taken from the prescribed authority. So it is appropriate to extract Section 29 of the Act, which runs as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - R Mala - Full Document

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs Bhavnagar Auto Resorts & 2 on 3 September, 2014

In that sense, Ram Bharosay's case does help the respondents. However, it may be bear in mind that unlike the present case, therein the question before the court for consideration was renewal of lease under the statutory provision. More than that it may also be bear in mind that proceeding arose pursuant to issuance of notice of termination of lease by the landlord followed by suit for eviction.
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R D Kothari - Full Document

Valimohamed Haji Allarakha Sonawala ... vs Zainal Abidin Afzal Dewji And 6 Ors on 5 February, 2016

Hillen & Pettigrew v ICIC (Alkali) Ltd., [1936] AC 65; Baker v R, (1983) 153 CLR 338; Laxmi Ram Pawar v Sitabai Dhotre, (2011) 1 SCC 356 24 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2016 23:59:47 ::: NMSL-259-15-VALIMOHD.DOC accept any such submission in the facts of this case, having regard to the Plaintiffs' pleadings and their evidence.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document

Valimohamed Haji Allarakha Sonawala ... vs Zainal Abidin Afzal Dewji And 6 Ors on 5 February, 2016

Hillen & Pettigrew v ICIC (Alkali) Ltd., [1936] AC 65; Baker v R, (1983) 153 CLR 338; Laxmi Ram Pawar v Sitabai Dhotre, (2011) 1 SCC 356 24 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2016 23:59:46 ::: NMSL-259-15-VALIMOHD.DOC accept any such submission in the facts of this case, having regard to the Plaintiffs' pleadings and their evidence.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document

Ajit Singh vs Union Of India Thru' Secy. & 6 Others on 6 July, 2017

27. At this stage, it would be necessary to have a glance at the judgments of the Supreme Court dealing with the word/expression "trespasser" and "encroachers". The Supreme Court, in Laxmi Ram Pawar Vs Sitabai Balu Dhotre & Anr, (2011) 1 SCC 356, while dealing with the question: is a trespasser covered by the definition of "occupier" in Section 2(e)(v) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and, if yes, whether for his eviction from the land or building in a declared slum area, the written permission of the competent authority under Section 22(1)(a) of the said Act is mandatorily required, considered the purport of the words "trespass"/"trespasser". In paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, the Supreme Court observed thus:
Allahabad High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Somana Gouda vs Chatrappa Halepyati on 5 April, 2024

7) AIR 2019 Supreme Court 3128 between Parminder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., & Others 8)AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1785 between Nagarajappa Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 9)(2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343 between Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Another 10) (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases 356 between Laxmi Ram Pawar Vs. Sitabai Balu Dhotre and Another 11) 2004 ACJ 1109 between K.Narasimha Murthy Vs. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another 12) 2007 ACJ 13 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,Vs. Papamma & Another 13) 2002 ACJ 1743 between R.Venkatesh Vs.P.Saravanan & Others 14) (2020)4 Supreme Court Cases 413 15) MFA No.103807/2016 c/w 103835/2016
Bangalore District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next