Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 68 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Mani Nariman Daruwala Alias Bharucha ... vs Phiroz N. Bhatena And Ors. on 30 April, 1991

Om Joshi Apartments Flat Owners ... vs Dr. Natwarlal D. Joshi And Ors. on 3 September, 1999

28. So far as the enforceability of the decree is concerned, it was contended by Mr. Sakhardande on the basis of the judgment of Justice Agarwal, in Mani Nariman Daruwala since deceased by his heirs Rusi Nariman Daruwala and Ors. v. Phiroz N. Bhatena and Ors. 1991 Mah. L. J 376 : AIR 1991 SC 1494 (Bom.) that if the decree is a nullity the same can be challenged by the obstructionist in execution proceedings or in proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code and to contend that the decree was not liable to be executed and this right was vested with the obstructionist even though he cannot establish his independent right to possession. According to Mr. Sakhardande the decree for eviction obtained by the respondents against the original lessee was a nullity because the decree was passed on the ground that the original lessee was in arrears of rent and was a defaulter whereas according to Mr. Sakhardande the original lessee was not at all a defaulter. The suit was filed by the respondents for recovery of Rs. 53,424/ - being the arrears of rent from 15.12.1968 to 14.4.1970 at the rate of Rs. 3,339/- per month and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 3,339/- from 14.4.1970 till the possession is delivered. According to Mr. Sakhardande lease agreement was executed on 15.9.1967 between the respondent and the original lessee and it provided that the lessee shall not be liable to pay rent or compensation for a period of fifteen months from the date of the lease (this is as per clause IV on page 13). This period of fifteen months gets completed on 15.12.1968 and it is from 15.12.1968 that the rent becomes payable as per the lease deed Clause IV. Lessee deposited Rs. 10,017/-equivalent to three months rent with the respondents and as per the receipt signed at the end of the lease agreements, the respondents received Rs. 40,068/- by way of deposit therefore when the suit was filed for arrears of rent of Rs. 53,424/-, the respondents had with him a sum of Rs. 50,085/ - meaning thereby that rent for fifteen months stood paid from out of the aforesaid amount of deposit and as such the original lessee was not in arrears and a decree is a nullity.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - D G Deshpande - Full Document

Udyavara R. Acharya And Anr vs Mr. Jugal Kishore Sharda on 27 April, 2020

62. That is, as the Supreme Court has held in Mani Nariman Daruwala @ Bharucha v. V. Phiroz N. Bhatena[22] in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court can set aside or reverse finding of an inferior court or tribunal only in a case where there is no evidence or where no reasonable person 21 AIR 1954 SC 215 22 (1991) 3 SCC 141 30/34 WP 5341 and 5342 Copy could possibly have come to the conclusion which the Court or tribunal has come to. "Except to this `limited extent' the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact."
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - D S Naidu - Full Document

Udyavara R. Acharya And Anr vs Mr. Jugal Kishore Sharda on 27 April, 2020

62. That is, as the Supreme Court has held in Mani Nariman Daruwala @ Bharucha v. V. Phiroz N. Bhatena[22] in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court can set aside or reverse finding of an inferior court or tribunal only in a case where there is no evidence or where no reasonable person 21 AIR 1954 SC 215 22 (1991) 3 SCC 141 30/34 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2020 03:48:27 ::: WP 5341 and 5342 Copy could possibly have come to the conclusion which the Court or tribunal has come to. "Except to this `limited extent' the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact."
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - D S Naidu - Full Document

Navnitlal Haraklal Wani vs Ravindra Shambhu Chaudhari And Others on 30 April, 2020

(1) Brahmdeo Choudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & Anr. reported in 1997 (1) Mh.L.J. (SC) 817 (2) Sarup Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 40 SC (3) Mani Nariman Daruwala since deceased by his heirs Rusinariman Daruwala and Ors. Vs. Phiroz N. Bhatena and Ors. reported in 1991 Mh.L.J. 376 ::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 06:26:37 ::: AO-45-2018.odt -12- (4) M/s. Eureka Builders & Ors. Vs. Gulabchand S/o. Veljee Dand Since Deceased by L.Rs. & Ors. Etc. reported in 2018 SAR (Civil) 851 SC (5) Gurnam Singh (D) through Lrs.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Vishwa Gaurav Pandey vs Dr. Smt. Sangeeta Agarwal & Anr. on 3 June, 2021

It is no doubt true that the jurisdiction of the Court is ascertained by the allegations and averments made in the plaint alone and it is not the defence which is to be looked into for the aforesaid purpose.The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist in the cases Sanvarmal Kejriwal (supra) and Mani Nariman Daruwala (Supra) clearly upholds the aforesaid proposition and there is no doubt or quarell to the said proposition. However, in the present facts and circumstances, it is equally true that the plaint has to be considered as a whole and not in piecemeal. The plaintiffs in paragraph 6 while narrating the facts has clearly indicated that though the defendant had filed a frivilous suit but as there was no express or written contract pertaining to the creation of relationship of landlord and tenant and also for the reason that the defendant had issued cheques towards payment of rent which was encashed by the plaintiffs, hence, to remove any doubt, the plaintiffs admit the defendant as their tenant.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next