Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 96 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Adil Jamshed Frenchman (D) By Lrs vs Sardar Dastur Schools Trust & Ors on 14 February, 2005

Mahendra Kumar Kabra vs Chaturbhuj & Anr on 3 April, 2018

The judgment rendered in the case of Adil Jamshed Frenchman (supra), no doubt, relates to the production of the documents however, in the said case, the trial court had come to the conclusion that the same were necessary for proper adjudication of the case but in spite of the facts of the said case, the High Court set aside the order. It was in these circumstances that the Apex Court set aside the order of High Court and upheld that of the trial court. As per Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC, before (4 of 6) [CW-9533/2017] allowing an application to produce the documents, the Court has to satisfy itself as to whether the said documents are necessary or not. In the present case, the Rent Tribunal has specifically noted that the documents sought to be produced were not relevant.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Nirmal Vijay & Company vs M/S Wenger & Company on 4 February, 2020

RCT No.184/16 (Old No. 16/14) M/s Nirmal Vijay & Company Vs. M/s Wenger & Company Page 10 of 22 In Adil Jamshed Frenchman (D) by LRs (Supra), it was inter alia held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the documents sought to be produced are material and if substantiated would have a material effect on the case, the application for additional evidence should be allowed.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Debjani Bhowmik vs Sri Saikat Dasgupta on 8 February, 2021

It has been observed in Adil Jamshed Frenchman (supra) that a bona fide requirement must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire in contra-distinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant at the instance of the landlord, claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family which would entitle the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant. It has been further observed that the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a CRP No.24 of 2020 Page 28 of 33 practical approach, instructed by the realities of life.
Tripura High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S Talapatra - Full Document

Shiva Kumar Nepal vs Sankar Roy on 4 July, 2019

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adil Jamshed Frenchman (supra) held that the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life and it is to be assessed whether in the given facts proved by the material on record whether the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. The requirement should be so as to convince the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire.
Sikkim High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - M M Rai - Full Document

Rajla Devi & Ors vs Tashi Tsh. Bhutia on 2 May, 2013

14. Mr. N. Rai, learned Senior Counsel would fortify his submissions by the authority of a catena of decisions. The judgment of Orissa High Court in Raghaba Chandra Das vs. Bipin Behari Mohapatra and Ors. : AIR 1989 Orissa 40 (Full Bench) and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash Chand & Anr. vs. Dharam Dass : (2005) 5 SCC 375, in Adil Jamshed Frenchmen (dead) by LRs vs. Sardar Dastur School Trust & Ors.: (2005) 2 SCC 476, in Pratap Rai Tanwas & Anr. vs. Uttamchand & Anr. : (2004) 8 SCC 13 Rajala Devi & ors. vs. Tashi Tshering Bhutia 490, in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. vs. Vimalabaibai Prabhulal & Ors. : (2005) 8 SCC 252, in Dwarka Prasad vs. Niranjan & Ors. : (2003) 4 SCC 549, in Akhileshwa Kumar & Ors. vs. Mustaqim & Ors. : (2003) 1 SCC 462, in Smt. Janeja Devi & Ors. vs. Moharam Ali : AIR 1988 SC 411, in Siddalingamma & Anr. vs. Mamtha Shenoy : (2001) 8 SCC 561, in Lingala Kundala Rao vs. Vootukuri Narayan Rao : (2003) 1 SCC 672, in Suhila vs. IInd Addl. District Judge, Banda & Ors. : (2003) 2 SCC 281 were among the decisions cited before me by Mr. N. Rai. In reply, Mr. Nagpal, learned counsel for the appellants would reiterate his submissions made earlier.
Sikkim High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - P C Kuriakose - Full Document

Dr. Sakuntala Sharma vs Mohan Kr. Agarwal on 26 July, 2013

Arguing that while deciding whether a particular need is bona fide or not, the Court is expected to have a practical approach instructed by the realities of life, Mr. Rai submitted that the question to be asked is whether the need is a natural, real, sincere and honest and in the circumstance, which attend on the case and, on this proposition, Mr. Rai relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Adil Jamshed Frenchman (Dead) by LRS vs. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust and others : (2005) 2 SCC 476. In support of the proposition that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and the tenant has no right to dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he 18 should do and what he should not do in his building.
Sikkim High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P C Kuriakose - Full Document

Jalaludheen vs Abdul Rasheed on 5 November, 2021

In Adil Jamshed Frenchman v. Sardur Dastur Schools Trust [(2005) 2 SCC 476] the Apex Court reiterated that, as laid down in Shiv Samp Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222] a bona fide R.C.Rev.No.108 of 2021 9 requirement must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire in contradistinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family which would entitle the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant. The question to be asked by a judge of facts by placing himself in the place of the landlord is whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. The concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life.
Kerala High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next