Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (2.13 seconds)
Documents citing Jagatjit Industries Ltd. vs Sh. Rajiv Gupta on 25 September, 1980

Kelvinator Of India Ltd. vs A.P. Bagai on 23 November, 1993

(12) Letting purpose is to be determined from the terms of the lease deed. In the present case, as per stipulation in clause 3 of the lease deed,Ex.A-3,IT is "for the residential purposes of the Managing Director as also for the purpose of the official guest house." Clause 4 of the said lease provides that the premises shall not be used for the purpose of any trade or business nor shall they be used for any purpose barred by the rules, bye- laws........etc. The terms of the lease deed, read as a whole,leave little scope for doubt that the letting purpose was residential. It does not cease to be so if besides residence of company's Managing Director it is let out also for the purpose of use as a guest house by the company's officers or otherwise used as such. This has been the consistent view of this Court taken in M/s. Jagatjit Industries Ltd. vs. Shri Rajiv Gupta, 1980 (2) Rcj 769, Mst.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - D K Jain - Full Document

Amrit Lal vs Jagpal Singh Verma on 25 July, 1996

(6) In S.K.Gupta and Another v. R.C.Jain scope of revision under Sub-section (8) of Section 25B of the Drc Act, as distinct from scope of revision under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code was considered in the light of judgment in Jagatjit Industries Limited v. Rajiv Gupta, (1980 18 Dlt 34 and following observations were made in para 37 at page 198: "........THE revisional jurisdiction u/S. 25B(8) of the Act is wider than under Section 115 of the Civil P.C. The High Court under this provision has power to reverse the finding which is perverse, contrary to evidence or based on no evidence. The phrase 'according to law' in Section 25B(8) of the Act refers to the decision as a whole, and is not to be equated to error of law or of fact simpliciter. It refers to the overall decision which must be according to law which it would not be, if there is a miscarriage of justice due to a mistake of law.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 26 - S N Kapoor - Full Document

J.K. Saxena vs Shri Madan Lal Khurana on 15 September, 1998

10. It is next contended that there is limited scope of interference in exercise of revisional powers of this Court and the High Court is merely to examine the records in order to satisfy itself that the decision of the Controller is "according to law". The High Court, however, will not reappreciate the evidence and sit in judgment over findings of fact arrived at by the Controller. The High Court cannot also interfere merely because on the same evidence, it is likely that it may come to a different conclusion. In other words, the High Court will not be justified in interference with the plain finding of fact. Reference is made in this regard to the judgment of this Court reported as M/s Jagatjit Industries Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Rajiv Gupta .
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next