Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.98 seconds)Shri Deepak Thirwani vs Shri Lachman Das Mansharmani on 30 September, 2014
Sh. Nand Kumar Aggarwal vs Sh.Suhas Chand Gupta on 26 August, 2021
Ld. Counsel submitted that u/S 6A
DRC Act , the landlord is entitled to claim enhanced rent by 10%
every three years and reliance has been placed upon Deepak
Thirwani Vs Lachman Das Mansharmani,2013(2) RLR 687.
E.D. Enterprises Private Ltd vs Kaiser Begum & Anr on 28 July, 2022
9. An admission can also be inferred from the facts and circumstances of
the case without there being any dispute. In such cases, in order to
expedite and dispose of the matter such admission can be acted upon.
6
Even on constructive admissions or what follows as a natural corollary
the Court can proceed to pass a decree in the plaintiff's favour.
[Charanjit Lal Mehra vs. Kamal Saroj Mahajan (Smt) (2005) 11 SCC 279
at paragraph 8, Pradeep Khanna vs Renu Khetarpal (2015) 219 DLT 417
at paragraph 28, Sirijit Sachdev vs. Kazakhastan Investment Services
Pvt. Ltd. & Others 66 (1997) DLJ 54 at paragraphs 12 and 17, Rajgopal
(HUF) vs. the State Bank of India 1999(49) DRJ 285 at paragraphs 8 and
9, H.K. Taneja vs. Bipin Ganatra 2013(1) Mh. L.J.783 at paragraph 20,
Concrete Developers vs. State Bank of India (2022) 3 BomCR 636 at
paragraphs 11 and 22 , Pooja Sharma vs. Garmeet Kaur 2013 SCC
OnLine 4730 at paragraphs 17-19, Deepak Thiruwani & Anr. vs. Lalman
Das Mansharmani (2013) 203 DLJ 391 at paragraph 12].
Sh. V.N. Gujral vs Smt. Kavita Chhibber on 10 May, 2014
12. Thus, from that observation itself it is being made clear that question of decreeing
the suit on alleged admission is to be determined only in the light of the pecuniary facts
of that case. In this case when there is dispute of many facts between plaintiff and
defendant and both are practicing advocate I do not find that discretionary relief under
Order 12 rule 6 CPC can be given. So far as judgment reported in Payal Vision Ltd vs
10
Radhika Choudhary 2012 (7)(SC) SLT 303, Surjit Sachdev vs Kazakhstan
Investment Services Pvt. Ltd 1997 II AD (Delhi) 518, Rajpal Singh vs Deen Dayal
Kapil 2014 (207) DLT 651, K. Kishore & Construction (HUF) vs Allahabad bank
1998 (71) DLT 581, Ghanshyam Dass Soni & Anr. Vs Sundri Apparels (India) Pvt.
Ltd , 196 (2013) DLT 196 and Deepak Thirwani And Anr. Vs Lachman Das
Mansharmani 2013 VII AD Delhi 53, as relied upon by counsel, without disputing the
ratio of law laid down in those judgment it can safely be stated that all these judgment
are different on all factual background. Therefore, can not be relied upon in the facts of
the present case. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, I find that application of the
plaintiff is also to be dismissed.
Kvr Chandra & Sons Huf vs . Jaico Book Distributors on 28 July, 2014
To the same effect was held in
'Deepak Thirwani Vs. Lachchman Das Mansarmani, 2013 (203) DLT 391'.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Kaushik Ganguly & Ors on 18 June, 2025
33. Even on constructive admissions or what follows as a natural
corollary the Court can proceed to pass a decree in the plaintiff's favour.
[Charanjit Lal Mehra vs. Kamal Saroj Mahajan (Smt)18 at paragraph 8,
Pradeep Khanna vs Renu Khetarpal19 at paragraph 28, Sirijit
Sachdev vs. Kazakhastan Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. & Others 20
at paragraphs 12 and 17, Rajgopal (HUF) vs. the State Bank of India21
at paragraphs 8 and 9, H.K. Taneja vs. Bipin Ganatra22 at paragraph
20, Concrete Developers vs. State Bank of India23 at paragraphs 11
and 22 , Pooja Sharma vs. Garmeet Kaur24 at paragraphs 17-19,
Deepak Thiruwani & Anr. vs. Lalman Das Mansharmani 25 at
paragraph 12 referred in E.D. Enterprise Private Limited v. Kaiser
Begum & Anr.26 decided on 28th July, 2022.]
Tapan Mitra vs Tushar Chawla on 20 March, 2026
8. An admission can also be inferred from the facts and circumstances
of the case without there being any dispute. In such cases, in order to
expedite and dispose of the matter such admission can be acted upon.
Even on constructive admissions or what follows as a natural corollary
the Court can proceed to pass a decree in the plaintiff's favour.
[Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan (Smt), (2005) 11 SCC
279 at paragraph 8, Pradeep Khanna v. Renu Khetarpal, (2015) 219
DLT 417 at paragraph 28, Sirijit Sachdev v. Kazakhastan Investment
Services Pvt. Ltd., 66 (1997) DLJ 54 at paragraphs 12 and 17, Rajgopal
(HUF) v. The State Bank of India, (1999) 49 DRJ 285 at paragraphs 8
and 9, H.K. Taneja v. Bipin Ganatra, (2013) 1 Mah LJ 783 at paragraph
20, Concrete Developers v. State Bank of India, (2022) 3 Bom CR 636 at
paragraphs 11 and 22, Pooja Sharma v. Garmeet Kaur, 2013 SCC
OnLine Del 4730 at paragraphs 17-19, Deepak Thiruwani v. Lalman
Das Mansharmani, (2013) 203 DLJ 391 at paragraph 12]."
Smt. Anita Arora W/O Sh. Manoj Kumar ... vs Ms. Sangeeta Bhalla D/O Sh. J.S. Bhalla on 6 May, 2014
(iv) In the present suit as per plaintiff, plaintiff has let out the suit
property i.e property No. J5/49, First Floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi
consisting of two rooms set to the defendant at the monthly rent of Rs.
5,500/ on 02.01.2009 and time was mutually extended by mutual
settlement till 30.11.2011 but defendant failed to vacate the suit property
even after elapse of agreed time and plaintiff served a legal notice dated
03.09.2012 upon the defendant to vacate the property and defendant sent
the reply dated 17.10.2012 but failed to vacate the suit property. Hence, the
present suit. It is also argued on behalf of the plaintiff that admittedly rent
agreement was executed between plaintiff and defendant and notice of
termination of tenancy was also served upon the defendant and rate of rent
Suit No. 284/12 Anita Arora Vs. Sangeta Bhalla Page No.11/23
is Rs. 20,000/ per month, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
possession. Further, defence of defendant is that the defendant is tenant of
J5/49A, and not of J5/49 is not tenable as J5/49A and J5/49 are two
different properties. Further, during examination, defendant has admitted
the case of the plaintiff and defendant has produced one neighbor as DW2
but he has not deposed on the basis of any government record and the
same is irrelevant being hearsay evidence. Further, defendant has not
brought any government record to show that house number of the property
in possession of defendant is J5/49A. Further, plaintiff has relied upon the
judgments i.e Deepak Thirwani and another Vs. Lachman Das Man,
2013 (137) DRJ 355 and Vijay Gupta Vs. Manoj Mehta, 156(2009)
Delhi Law Times 666.
Tina Kohli vs . Shalini Jolly on 15 May, 2014
2. Ashok Chopra v. Syndicate Bank, 169 (2010) DLT
15 Apart from this, recently in the case of Deepak Thirwani Vs.
Lakchman Dass Mansharmani 203 (2013) DLT 391, the said legal position has
been further reaffirmed/followed by our own Hon'ble High Court and a decree for
possession was passed.