Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 447 (1.87 seconds)
Documents citing Nasiruddin And Ors vs Sita Ram Agarwal on 28 January, 2003

Rajendra Kumar vs Jagdish Gehlot And Ors on 24 July, 2025

13. In case the tenant were to file his application after the statutory period of fifteen days is over, he would be required to file an application for condonation of delay for his failure to perform his statutory duty within the statutory stipulated period. However, according to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nasiruddin & Ors. (supra), the power to condone the delay under the Limitation Act has not been bestowed upon the Court in an application filed under Section 13(4) of the Act. Therefore, in case the tenant wants the Court to extend the period for depositing the amount, obviously the application has to be filed before the completion of fifteen days. Therefore, in the present case, both the learned Courts below were justified in holding that since the application for extension of time was not filed within the stipulated period of fifteen days, the application deserved to be dismissed."
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors vs Oswal Singh Sabha Thr.Ganpat Sand on 7 January, 2009

25. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the appellant defendants failed to comply with the order of learned trial court dated 29/9/2000 and having complied with such order belatedly by depositing the interest on 9/1/2001 the eviction decree was liable to be passed against the appellant defendants in terms of ratio laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nasiruddin vs. Sita Ram Agarwal (supra) and the same was rightly applied by the first appellate court in the impugned judgment dated S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.17/2005-Smt. Mohini Devi & Ors. vs.Oswal Singh Sabha S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.13/2005-Shyam Lal vs. Oswal Singh Sabha DATE OF JUDGMENT : .7th January, 2009 28/29 29/10/2004.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document

Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd & Anr vs Tata Sons Ltd & Ors on 21 September, 2017

82. It is well settled that where legislative intent is clear, it is the duty of the courts to give full effect to the same without scanning its wisdom or policy, and without engrafting, adding or implying anything which is not consistent with the legislative intent. In a given case, the court can only iron out the fabric but it cannot change the texture of the fabric. (See Nasiruddin v. Sita 40 Ram Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC 577 (Para 35, 37); Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. Parson Tools and Plants (1975) 4 SCC 22; V.L.S. Finance Ltd. v. Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 278 (Pare 18) and Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank (2007) 2 SCC 230 (para29).
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 97 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Jai Singh vs Smt.Leela Saraf on 14 September, 2012

14. Thus, the legal position is settled beyond the pale of doubt that the delay in deposit of rent as fixed by the trial court provisionally either under Section 7 of the Act or under Section 13(3) of the Act, cannot be condoned be that of one day, one month or more as Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply in such cases and as held by S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.81/2005 JAI sINGH VS. LEELA SARAF DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14th SEPTEMBER, 2012 28/33 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nasiruddin & ors. vs. Sita Ram Agrawal (supra) followed by this Court consistently, the delay in deposit of rent in the present case, was bound to result in the eviction decree.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - V Kothari - Full Document

Smt. Bina Devi Binani vs Ramesh Kumar Gupta (Since Deceased) By ... on 14 May, 2015

Since Mr. Chakraborty founded his submission on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin and Ors. Vs. Sitaram Agarwal (supra) and according to him, the provisions contained in sub-Sections (4) and (5) Section 13 of the Rajasthan Act are pari materia with the provisions contained in sub-Sections (2) and (3) Section 7 of the said Act of 1997 it would also be convenient to set out the provisions contained in Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Act as quoted by the Supreme Court in the said decision.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 14 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Best Workers' Union vs Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply And ... on 10 March, 2004

17. The Apex Court in Nasiruddin's case (supra) has also held that "Whenever the special Act provides for extension of time or condonation of default, the Court possesses the power therefor, but where the statute does not provide either for extension of time or to condone the default in depositing the rent within the stipulated period, the Court does not have the power to do so." It was further held that:--
Bombay High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 4 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary ... vs Ismat Ahmed on 13 August, 2025

In this regard, guidance may be taken from three-Judge Bench judgment in the case of ‘Nasiruddin and Others Vs. Sita Ram Agarwal’7 wherein this Court, inter-alia, interpreted the mandatory or directory nature of expressions ‘shall’ and ‘may’ used in Section 13(4) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short ‘1950 Act’) in the framework of rent deposit obligations qua determination of provisional rent. How and 7 (2003) 2 SCC 577 18 for what purpose the word shall has been used in this regard in Section 13(4) of 1950 Act is referred which reads as thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - J K Maheshwari - Full Document

Gokul Das & Anr. vs . Gurumuk Das on 13 January, 2016

In view of the aforesaid, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, which delineate the legal position prior to aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nasiruddin (supra) and Shivdutt Jadia (supra), are of little help to the defendants and therefore, the present second appeal of the defendants-tenants thus deserves dismissal while answering the substantial question of law framed above in favour of the plaintiff-landlord and against the defendant-tenant, the present second appeal of the appellants-defendants is dismissed.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next