Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.83 seconds)

Yogesh Kumar Verma vs Mangal Singh on 9 August, 2024

29. Since no order u/s 15 (1) DRC Act was passed in the present case because the respondent did not appear before this court, therefore, eviction order u/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act cannot be passed straight away without affording the opportunity to the respondent to the benefit of section 14 (2) of DRC Act. The present case has been filed on 17.01.2018. The petitioners are entitled to legally recover rent from the respondent for a period of three years prior to filing of the present case. Accordingly, an order u/s 15(1) of DRC Act is RC ARC NO. 97/18 Page 11 of 12 Yogesh Kumar Verma & Anr. Vs Mangal Singh passed directing the respondent to pay or deposit the rent @ Rs. 133.10/- per month alongwith interest @15% per annum for the period starting from on 17.01.2015 till date within one month of service of notice upon the respondent informing him of this order & to continue to pay or deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 133.10/- per month by the 15th day of each succeeding English calender month.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pankaj Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 31 January, 2024

2. By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought for a suitable direction to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Ballia to conclude and decide the Complaint Case No.808 of 2021 (Pankaj Kumar Verma vs. Amrendra Jay Prakash Private Limited and another) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Nagar, District Ballia, expeditiously within a stipulated period.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1