Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.37 seconds)

Sardarilal vs Narayanlal on 13 March, 1979

Reliance was also placed upon the cases of Smt. Durga-rani Devi v. Mohiuddin, ((1950) 86 Cal LJ 198); Daulat Singh v. State of Bombay, (1957 Nag LJ 625) and Ram Charan v. State of U. P., ((1969) Rent CR 855) (All). These cases do support the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. But, with great respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken in them. The cases do not give due importance to the fact that Section 109 provides for apportionment of rent without the consent of the lessee indicating severance of tenancy. The cases also take too narrow a view of the words "all the rights" of the lessor as used in Section 109. For the reasons' given earlier by us, we respectfully dissent from the view taken in these cases.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

N.R. Ajwani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 21 December, 2000

In Madho Singh Daulat Singh v. State of Bombay AIR 1960 Bom 285, the Bombay High Court held that in order to enable an employer to take disciplinary action against his servant it is not a condition precedent that the misconduct on the part of the servant himself arise within his employment and not outside him employment. This case also is not at all relevant for the purpose of the present discussion.

S.K. Jasra vs Union Of India And Ors. on 28 May, 2015

In Madho Singh Daulat Singh v. State of Bombay AIR 1960 Bom 285, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that in order to enable an employer to take disciplinary action against his servant it is not a condition precedent that the misconduct on the part of the servant must arise within his employment and not outside his employment. The relevant paras of the said judgment are as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - K Gambhir - Full Document
1