Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 67 (2.48 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Kamakshi Builders vs M/S Ambedkar Educational Society & Ors on 18 May, 2007

The Chairman & Managing Trustee vs Tmt.C.V.Rajeswari Ammal (Deceased) on 13 June, 2013

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh (dead) through Lrs vs. Ram Singh (dead) through LRs [2000 (3) SCC 708]; Kamakshi Builders vs. Ambedkar Educational Society & Ors., [2007 (12) SCC 27]; and Chatti Konati Rao & Ors., vs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao [2010 (14) SCC 316].
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 7 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

K.Rukmani (Died) By vs Adikesavan(Died) on 4 August, 2009

32. Moreover in the present case, this Court finds that the trial Court has committed an error in holding that the tenant would become a trespasser and tenant by sufferance automatically after the determination of the lease. When the tenant has taken a plea that there is no tenancy and when he has chosen to question the very sale deed executed by his father the Court below ought to have accepted the evidence of the plaintiff side instead of holding that automatically the period of limitation would run after the expiry of the period mentioned under Ex.A16. The position has been made clear by the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 6 MLJ 337 (Kamakshi Builcders Vs. Ambedkar Educational Society and others), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that not withstanding the termination of the tenancy, a tenant continues to be a tenant, therefore under those circumstances Article 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not be attracted and in its place only Article 65 of the said Act alone is applicable.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Sanwar Lal Rai vs Appellate Rent Tribunal Anr on 28 February, 2013

In Kamakshi Builders, supra, the judgement relied by counsel for the petitioner, although it is true that the Supreme Court held that burden to prove his title was on the respondent-tenant, but because tenant in that case was asserting his title and disputing ownership of the landlord, was admittedly put in possession at the initial stage when the disputed property was let out to him, a fact not in dispute. Unlike in the present case, the tenant in that case was claiming title by way of oral gift and alternatively on adverse possession. In those facts, it was observed by the Supreme Court that burden to prove his title was of the respondent-tenant.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - M Rafiq - Full Document

Prof. Ramesh Chandra vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 1 March, 2012

23. We may record that the petitioner neither in the writ petition nor in the rejoinder has challenged the entire Annexure to Ordinance XI; what is challenged therein is only the vires of Para 6 thereof. In fact the learned senior counsel for the petitioner during the oral submissions before us also did not challenge the vires to the entire Annexure to Ordinance XI. Similarly no challenge in the writ petition is to be found to Para 6 also on the ground of the same being discriminatory vis-à-vis the College appointed teachers. No oral arguments also in this regard were addressed and the said arguments have been smuggled into the summary in brief handed over to us. The written arguments cannot be used to smuggle in new pleas not contained in the pleadings and not addressed at the time of W.P.(C)2547/2010 Page 24 of 40 hearing. We are thus not inclined to entertain the same. The Apex Court in Kamakshi Builders Vs. Ambedkar Educational Society (2007) 12 SCC 27 refused to look into a plea even as to lack of jurisdiction raised for the first time in the written submissions.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Vale Australia Pty Limited vs Steel Authority Of India Limited & Anr. on 30 March, 2012

In this regard, reliance is placed on Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (2003) 6 SCC 595; Bai Hira Devi v. The Official Assignee of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 448; Kamakshi Builders v. Ambedkar Educational Society (2007)12 SCC 27; Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mahomed Haji Latif (1968) 3 SCR 862 and Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 1 SCC 133.
Delhi High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 7 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next