Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 138 (1.95 seconds)
Documents citing Ganpat Ladha vs Sashikant Vishnu Shinde on 21 February, 1978

Bachiben Tulsidas vs Jayantilal Chunilal on 18 March, 2005

5.8 I have also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court particularly judgment in the case of SHAH DHANSUKHLAL CHHAGANLAL v. DALICHAND VIRCHAND SHROFF (supra), GANPAT LADHA v. SASHIKANT VISHNU (supra) and JOSHI BHURARAM DATTARAM v. JIVIBAI D. MULCHAND (supra) which have been heavily relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents. It may be noted that in this case the tenant was in arrears of rent for 18 months from November 1972 to April 1974 and therefore the plaintiff had given notice to the tenant for arrears of rent. It may be noted that during the pendency of the appeal the landlord filed exh. 24 in which also it comes to the notice that the tenant was irregular in payment for certain amount and default was committed by him. Even after considering this plea, the learned appellate judge has held that the tenant was not regular in making the payment and decree under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act has been passed against the tenant.
Gujarat High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Gian Devi Anand vs Jeeevan Kumar And Others on 1 May, 1985

The following Judgments were delivered BHAGWATI, J. I entirely agree with the Judgment just delivered by my learned brother A.N. Sen, J. I am adding a few words of my own since I was a party to the decision in Ganpat Ladha v. Shashikant Vishnu Shinde(1) where certain observations were made which seem to take a different view from the one we are taking in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 45 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Essar Bulk Terminal Limited vs Arcelormittal Nippon Steel India ... on 18 October, 2021

"Interference by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution must be within limits. This question has been considered by this Court from time to time and principles laid down. This Court in Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde, [1978] 3 SCR 198 expressed the view that the High Court commits a gross error in interfering with what was a just and proper exercise of discretion by the Court of Small Causes, in Page 38 of 42 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 17 00:37:36 IST 2022 C/SCA/10577/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/10/2021 exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution. This was unwarranted. The High Court under Article 227 has a limited jurisdiction. It was held in that case that a finding as to whether circumstances justified the exercise of discretion or not, unless clearly perverse and patently unreasonable, was, after all a finding of fact and it could not be interfered with either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution."
Gujarat High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - B N Karia - Full Document

Mranalini B. Shah And Anr. vs Bapalal Mohanlal Shah on 1 August, 1978

15. We need not dilate on the matter further. Suffice it to say that on the basis of the facts found by the courts below and in the light of this Court's decision in Ganpath Ladha v. Sashikani Vishnu Shinde (supra), the question posed at the commencement of the judgment must be answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent. In the result, the appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and a decree for possession of the suit premises in favour of the appellant is passed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Haji Mohammed Din And Anr. vs Narain Dass on 6 November, 1978

The stand taken by him is vindicated by it decision of the Supreme Court in Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde, (supra). Dealing with a similar phraseology Beg C. J. speaking for himself, and Bhagwati and Jaswant Singh, JJ. observed that it was obvious from the language that the intention of the legislature in giving protection to a member of the family of the tenant residing with him at the time of his death was to secure that on the death of the tenant the member of his family residing with him at the time of his death is not thrown out, and this protection would be necessary only in case of residential premises. When a tenant is in occupation of a business premises, there would be no question of protecting against dispossession a member of the tenant's family residing with him at the time of his death. The legislative, intent never was to confer protection in respect of business premises on a member of a tenant's family residing with him at the time of his death. The amendment applies only in respect of residential premises, and since the premises in question before us are admittedly business premises; the respondents could not claim to be tenants under the amended definition.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 19 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next