Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.86 seconds)

Prakash Chandra vs Sri Ritesh Bhargawa on 20 August, 2020

In the matter of Ramesh Chandra Yadav (supra), fact of the case was entirely different, where the release application was filed under Section 21 of the Act, 1972, which was partly allowed directing the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to handover possession of vacant premises to plaintiff no. 1 i.e. respondent no. 3. Later on, respondent no. 3 filed another suit seeking eviction on the ground that the Act, 1972 shall not be applicable upon the premises in question since it was completed in the year 1977. The court held that in such circumstances, there would be no resjudicata. In this case, fact was not disputed and further there was nothing like filing of written statement admitting the fact and later on denying the same.
Allahabad High Court Cites 72 - Cited by 2 - N Tiwari - Full Document

Smt Sishu Sharma vs Satya Deo Maheshwari And 6 Others on 24 April, 2023

Having been aggrieved, husband of the petitioner has filed writ petition being Writ - A No. 54679 of 2002 (Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs. Additional District Judge Aligarh). Aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by order dated 22.01.2014 granting liberty to the petitioner to vacate premises in question within a period of six months. The relevant paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition is quoted herein below :
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - D Pathak - Full Document
1