Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Gurbachansingh vs Vimlabai on 30 September, 1992

Pooja Collections vs Smt. Kamla Jain on 25 August, 2021

In the case of Gurbachansingh v. Vimlabai, AIR 1993 MP 135, it has been held that in the suit for eviction/ejectment decree, default in deposit of rent during pendency of appeal- Amended Section 13 coming into force before filing of the appeal. Section 13 applies to appeal pending though arising out of the suit filed prior to enforcement of amendment. The tenant is obliged to comply with the amended provision.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 8 - A Palo - Full Document

Heera Traders vs Smt. Kamla Jain on 25 August, 2021

In the case of Gurbachansingh v. Vimlabai, AIR 1993 MP 135, it has been held that in the suit for eviction/ejectment decree, default in deposit of rent during pendency of appeal- Amended Section 13 coming into force before filing of the appeal. Section 13 applies to appeal pending though arising out of the suit filed prior to enforcement of amendment. The tenant is obliged to comply with the amended provision.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - A Palo - Full Document

Smt. Kanta Salaria vs Prakash Chandra on 21 January, 2011

In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court governing the field of the involved question, the case law of this court cited on behalf of the appellant in the matter of Gurbachansingh Vs. Vimlabai-AIR 1993 MP 135 and in the matter of ManoharLal GopiLal Pande Vs. Dr. Abdul Mazid Khan- 1997(1) MPLJ-232 are not helping them because the cited cases were decided by this court 13 long before giving the interpretation to section 13 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act,1961 by the Apex Court in the matter of Jamnalal (supra). In the aforesaid premises, I have not found any circumstance or substance in this appeal giving rise to any question of law rather than substantial question of law assailing the decree passed under section 12(1)(a) of the Act or to consider any question for condoning the delay in depositing the rent under section 13 of the Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Iqbal Hussain And Ors. vs Amit Kumar Mohata on 17 March, 2026

493 Nasiruddin & others v. Sitaram Agarwal, AIR 2003 SC 1543 Manoharlal Gopilal Pande v. Dr. Abdul Mazid Khan, 1997 (1) M.P.L.J. 232 Gurbachansingh v. Vimlabai, AIR 1993 (M.Ρ.) 135 It was submitted by Shri Jain, that without considering the question with regard to promise made to the petitioner by Shri Krishna Kumar Bavre and the fact that dispute was pending between Krishna Kumar and respondent which was decided by the Supreme Court vide Annexure-P/5, striking off defence is not proper.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Bhogiram (Dead) vs Mohanlal (Dead) on 28 October, 2022

(7) As far as the ground of application filed under Section 13(2) has not been decided is concerned, on perusing the aforesaid application, it is clear that he has mentioned specifically that all the rents have been paid 6 in last of his application. He has generally made submission that if any delay has occurred in depositing the rent, it be condoned. There is no specific prayer when rent was due why the delay occurred in depositing the rent. Counsel for the appellants, in support of his contention has placed a reliance in the case of Gurbachansingh Vs. Vimlabai as reported in A.I.R.1993 M.P.135. In the present case, no specific prayer regarding condonation of delay has been filed. (8) Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - D K Agarwal - Full Document

Shri Brijmohan Lal vs Smt. Daljit Kaur on 16 July, 2002

In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the decisions in the case of Gurbachansingh v. Vimlabai, reported in AIR 1993 MP 135, Smt. Nathi Bai v. Maheshwari Samaj, reported in AIR 1997 MP 19, Madho Parsed v. Nathuram, reported in 1997(1) MPWN 11, Jamnalal and Ors. v. Radheshyam, reported in 2000(2) JLJ 1, Krushnalal Buxi v. Sudarshan Pani and Ors., reported in 1995 Supp.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1