Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing T.V. Jagatrakshagan (Since Deceased) ... vs N. Futaree Bai And Ors. on 8 July, 1999

Sironmani vs C.D. Anna Sholly on 30 October, 2013

This proposition of law was reiterated by this Court in another decision of this Court reported in (Jagatrakshagan (deceased) and others vs. N. Futaree Bai and others) 2000 (3) Law Weekly 195 wherein it was held that "carrying on business" does not necessarily mean all steps required for carrying on business to be taken. It will be sufficient if even one step is taken and proved.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - B Rajendran - Full Document

Rohini Kumar vs Hassan Mohamed on 2 July, 2004

16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the finding rendered by the learned Appellate Authority that no steps had been taken by P.W.1 or by the petitioner to start the said business and that therefore the requirement of the building is not bona fide cannot be sustained for the simple reason that even if one step in the series of steps is taken to commence a new business, it is sufficient requirement to prove the bona fide requirement of the landlord and he has relied on the decision of this Court rendered by M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. in T.V. JAGATRAKSHAGAN AND OTHERS v. N. FUTAREE BAI AND OTHERS (2000-3-L.W. 195). Hence, he has urged that in view of the said ratio in the light of Ex.P-12, the requirement of the first floor of the building by the petitioner has to be held as bona fide.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - T V Masilamani - Full Document
1   2 Next