Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 53 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing Gurditta Mal vs Bal Sarup on 19 October, 1979

Prithipal Singh vs Satpal Singh(D) Th.Lrs on 18 December, 2009

28. Therefore, in view of our discussions made hereinearlier and in view of our findings that there was no reason for us not to rely on the decision of Prakash H. Jain (supra), only because that decision was rendered under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, whereas the present case has been filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act, but on 2 comparing the aforesaid two Acts and in view of the observations and principles laid down by this Court in Prakash H. Jain (supra), as noted hereinearlier, we are of the view that the provisions under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and the provisions under the Delhi Rent Control Act are pari materia and therefore, the decision in the case of Prakash H. Jain (supra) practically overrules the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in Mohd. Quresh (supra) and Gurditta Mal (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 287 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Mohd. Quresh vs Roopa Fotedar And Ors. on 15 December, 1989

(32) Even in the case of Gurditta Mal (supra), a Single Judge of this Court has expressed the same view. However, resort to the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be made only on the well settled principles applicable which need not be enumerated here because the question whether the eviction order should be set aside or not by taking resort to provisions of Order xxxvii Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be decided by the Single Judge Ob merits.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Sh. Chaman Lal Bajaj vs Balbir Nath Mathur Air 1986 Supreme ... on 30 April, 2012

Secondly the decision in Gurditta Mal Vs Bal Sarup has been practically over ruled in Prakash H Jain Versus Marie Fernandes AIR 2003 SC 4591 and Prithipal Singh Versus Satpal Singh 2010 Rajdhani Law Reporter 15 (SC). The counsel for the appellant also submitted that rule 23 Delhi Rent Control makes CPC applicable to the proceeding under DRC Act. It was on the basis of said rule that in C.D. Biswas Versus Smt Lachhmi Bai 1968 DLT 230 that application u/o 41 R 27 was entertained in proceeding under DRC Act. In Chander Prakash Chawla Versus K.K. Kapur 64 (1996) DLT 614 the question was whether two petitions pertaining to separate tenancies could be consolidated u/o 2 R 1 CPC. It was in this context that CPC was held applicable to proceeding under DRC Act by virtue of rule 23.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

U.N. Sood vs Gurbachan Singh on 17 March, 1981

Now the Rent Controller following (1980 Rlr 1) (supra), held that application for leave was filed beyond 15 days from the date of service, the only course open to it was to pass an order of eviction, as he had no power to condone the delay in filing the leave application beyond 15 days. In that of course the Additional Rent Controller may not be much at fault because the Judgment of Avadh Behari, J. was not brought to his notice and the Division Bench Judgment was given after the order of the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller having held that it was not within his power to condone the delay has no doubt casually observed that on merits he failed to find any reason as to why the petitioner who was served on 7. 11.1979 had not appeared or filed the leave application within 15 days of the service. But a reference to the impugned order will show the casual manner in which this aspect has been dealt with.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Act, 1958 Titled Nand Lal & Ors. vs . Satyawati & Anr. Bearing E.No.40/97 ... on 12 April, 2019

"In Gurditta Mal Vs. Bal Swarup (AIR 1980 Delhi 216) a learned Single Judge of the said High Court chose to infer conferment of power under Rule 23 of the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959, though such power was not conferred under the statute, by relying upon Section 151 CPC which in our view could not have been, having regard to the very nature and content of power under Section 151 and its inapplicability to Authorities other than ordinary courts."
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Act, 1958 Titled Nand Lal & Ors. vs . Satyawati & Anr. Bearing E.No.40/97 ... on 12 April, 2019

"In Gurditta Mal Vs. Bal Swarup (AIR 1980 Delhi 216) a learned Single Judge of the said High Court chose to infer conferment of power under Rule 23 of the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959, though such power was not conferred under the statute, by relying upon Section 151 CPC which in our view could not have been, having regard to the very nature and content of power under Section 151 and its inapplicability to Authorities other than ordinary courts."
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next