Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 103 (3.89 seconds)
Documents citing Hs Bedi vs National Highway Authority Of India on 22 January, 2016

Bharat Rao (Deceased) Through Lr'S ... vs Amit Bhalla And Anr on 18 April, 2024

14.3.6 Thus, this component of deduction from the security deposit by the defendants is not justified as it will be deemed that possession was handed over. Reliance is placed upon In H.S. Bedi Vs. National Highway Authority of India (supra), A.C.Raman vs. Muthavally Seydali's son Valiyakath Kaithakkal Kunhi Bara Haji (supra), Raja Laxman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan(supra), Onida Finance Ltd. Vs. Malini Khanna(supra), Uberoisons (Machines) Ltd. Vs. Samtel Colour Limited(supra), Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers' Society Vs. Harbanslal Gupta(supra), Tikka Brijender Singh Bedi Vs. Metso Minerals (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd(supra), Kamal Mangala Vs. Tata Finance Limited(supra) and Associated Journal Limited Vs. ICRA (supra).
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt ... vs M/S Maharia Raj Joint Venture & Ors on 24 June, 2021

80. If the judgment-debtor makes a false claim/statement in his/her affidavit, the decree-holder is at liberty to invoke Section 340 CrPC for Signature Not Verified EX.P. 275/2012 & EX.P. 276/2012 Page 46 of 88 Digitally Signed By:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:29.06.2021 19:05:43 prosecution of the judgment-debtor under Section 209 IPC. Whenever a false claim is made before a Court, it would be appropriate, in the first instance, to issue a show cause notice to the judgment-debtor to show cause as to why a complaint be not made under Section 340 CrPC for having made a false claim under Section 209 IPC and a reasonable opportunity be afforded to the judgment-debtor to reply to the same. If the facts are sufficient to return a finding that an offence appears to have been committed and it is expedient in the interest of justice to proceed to make a complaint under Section 340 CrPC, the Court need not order a preliminary inquiry. But if facts are not sufficient and there is suspicion, albeit a strong one, the Court may order a preliminary inquiry. For that purpose, the Court can direct a State agency to investigate and file a report along with such other evidence that they are able to gather. Once it prima facie appears that an offence under Section 209 IPC has been made out and it is expedient in the interest of justice, the Court should not hesitate to make a complaint under Section 340 CrPC. Reference be made to Sanjeev Kumar Mittal v. State, (2010) 174 DLT 214 for principles relating to Section 340 CrPC and H.S. Bedi v. National Highway Authority of India, 2016 (155) DRJ 259 for principles relating to Section 209 IPC.
Delhi High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 7 - J R Midha - Full Document

Kartar Singh Kochhar vs Icici Bank on 25 January, 2024

36. Plaintiff being in knowledge of all the facts cannot now claim that in absence of registered deed regarding alteration of tenanted premises, the surrender of basement cannot be accepted. Allowing such plea would mean letting plaintiff take benefit of his own wrong. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment in HS Bedi Vs. National Highway Authority of India (Supra), wherein Hon'ble Court deprecated the practice of landlords in not taking possession when offered by the tenants and trying to delay the taking of possession with ulterior motives.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Icra Limited Vs. Associated Journals ... vs Mrs.Romila Bajaj

3. HS Bedi Vs. National Highways Authority of India [2015 220 DLT 179] 7(xvii) The aforesaid judgments were pressed into service for the proposition that when a lessee offers to hand over vacant possession and landlord does not take possession, constructive possession is deemed to have been handed over on the date http://www.judis.nic.in 30 possession was offered to be handed over by the tenant and the landlord cannot claim rent thereafter as if the tenancy is continuing.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document

M/S Xtremedata Technologies Pvt Ltd vs M/S Andhra Graphics on 29 April, 2025

66. The last citation relied upon is the ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka for the proposition of law that a 55 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 representative of the company has to be duly authorized by the board of directors. In this regard, it is to be noted that, at the fag end of the trial, PW1 has been recalled and got marked Ex. P46, which is the board resolution passed by the board of directors of the plaintiff company dated 12-12- 2022, authorizing PW1 to represent the plaintiff company in the present suit. In the further cross-examination of PW1, after marking of this document, it has been suggested to PW1 that the said board resolution was in his custody since December 2022. By putting this suggestion, the defendant admits that the said board resolution was passed in favor of PW1 by the plaintiff company prior to the institution of the suit. Therefore, it follows that the PW1 who has signed the plaint in the present suit and deposed on behalf of the plaintiff is duly authorized. Therefore, the condition laid down in the ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that the representative of a company should be duly authorized by the board of directors is satisfied in the present case and therefore, the said ruling will not help the defendant in the present suit.
Bangalore District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hdfc Bank Ltd. And Another vs M/S Jay Pee And Sons on 20 January, 2026

7. There can't be any dispute with the proposition canvased by Delhi High Court in the case H.S. Bedi vs. National Highway Authority of India (supra) and Onida Finance Limited vs. Mrs. Malini Khanna (supra), that the disputes qua agreements relating to immoveable property used exclusively for trade of commerce would fall within 'commercial disputes' and thus have to be adjudicated by the Commercial Courts established by the dint of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P Jain - Full Document

Aarish Asgar Qureshi vs Fareed Ahmed Qureshi on 26 February, 2019

14) Learned counsel then relied upon a Delhi High Court judgment reported as H.S. Bedi vs. National Highway Authority of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9524 which states in some detail the problems faced with present day courts and the number of false affidavits that are filed before them. This again has very little application, as we have seen above, to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 7 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next