Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 414 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Babu Agarwal vs Jay Kishan Das on 7 October, 2009

Sh. Arjun Uppal vs M/S. Seth & Sons Pvt. Ltd on 27 August, 2015

The another plea of the respondent that petitioner no.1 is having no experience to start and run the restaurant is also of no use as in view of the law that one can start a new business even if of no experience. Reliance is placed on case law Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs. Jai Kishan Dass 2010 (1) SCC 164. Further, it is no part of the Court to examine whether business to be set up would be useful or not.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sahi Ram vs Satpal on 19 January, 2017

(i) In Ram Babu Agarwal vs. Jay Kishan Das, MANU/SC/1719/2009: (2010) 1 SCC 164, it was observed that RC.REV. 415/2013 Page 15 of 19 "A person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business that does not mean that his claim for starting new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new business and sometimes they are successful in the new business also."
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - J Nath - Full Document

Bibi Dhira Bala Malhotra vs Sh. S.K. Prakash on 16 December, 2013

32. As regards respondent's objection to the effect that petitioner has no experience in fashion and retail, including marketing and retail advisory and the terminology of business used in the petition are vague and incapable of interpretation and she does not wish to carry any business but wants to oust him from the premises for settling scores against him, petitioner has refuted his objection and relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in case titled Mohinder Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain and another case titled Ram Babu Agarwal Vs. Jay Kishan Das to argue that past­experience is not a pre­requisite for starting a new venture. The findings given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in these two judgments cited by petitioner's counsel do not require any discussion and the objection raised by respondent does not constitute any ground which would require adjudication. The relevant portion of the rulings are recorded below:
Delhi District Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rishal Singh vs Bohat Ram & Ors. on 21 July, 2014

The next argument of the counsel for the tenant was that the grandson _______________________________________________________________________ R.C. Rev. No.495 of 2012 Page 9 of 13 of the landlord was already employed elsewhere thereby the need for the tenanted premises to open a computer repair shop was false. Counsel went to further argue that since the landlord‟s grandson was already earning sufficiently and such being the situation there was no genuine need to supplement his income. The Courts have held that income of the person, be it the landlord or a dependent of the landlord, is inconsequential to the outcome of the eviction petition; and that Courts have held comfortable earnings or financial well-being of the eviction-petitioner or his/her dependent cannot be a ground for denying the eviction order sought in a petition founded on bona fide need. It is not for the tenant to set standards of the comfortable income of the landlord/dependent of the landlord. The argument of the counsel for the tenant that the grandson of the landlord, lacking the skill and knowledge to operate such a business, should not be granted eviction petition, lacks merit as there is rich body of judicial pronouncements which has settled the law, by holding that the landlord or the member of the family of the landlord who is construed to be dependent, does not necessarily need to possess the skill or knowledge in the area of business for which the eviction is sought. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the law does not expect the intending landlord or _______________________________________________________________________ R.C. Rev. No.495 of 2012 Page 10 of 13 dependent of the landlord to possess the requisite qualification for opening a business. He relies on Ram Babu v. Jai Kishan 2009 RLR 58(NSC) where the Supreme Court held:
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 39 - N Waziri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next