Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 142 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Rohit Jain vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. 2 ... on 29 January, 2018

Geeta Jain vs Dinesh Kumar Jain on 26 April, 2025

2.4. After gaining experience in the said field, the son of the petitioner at present is looking after the said business and is helping/assisting his mother. With the passage of time and goodwill, the clientage of the petitioner are increasing day by day and there is rise in the work-load of the petitioner and hence the petitioner requires her own accommodation to increase/start her own independent Business. Due to non-availability and lack of space, the petitioner is not in a position to grow-up her own business. The products in which the petitioner and her son are dealing require a good amount of space to be operational and property in question where the tenanted premises is situated is RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 3 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

This Is The Judgment Of Case Titled As ... vs Shankar on 6 June, 2019

Since 1995 to September 2006, defendant no.1 has been paying the rent to the previous owner in his name in the rent receipts. In the month of July 2008, plaintiff issued a legal notice to defendant no.1 demanding arrears of rent. Previous owner also issued a notice of demand of rent to defendant no.1 and later on another notice was also issued for attornment. Plaintiff also issued notice to defendant no.1 but after execution of the surrender deed, a false and belated reply was issued to CS No. 18313/16 Sanjeev Jain vs Shankar Lal 2/15 the plaintiff. That with the intervention of the well wishers of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1, defendant no.1 agreed to settle the dispute regarding the tenanted premises with the plaintiff and agreed to surrender his tenancy rights with possession in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 executed a surrender deed on 20.06.2011 in favour of the plaintiff. The same was also registered. Despite agreeing to hand over the vacant possession of the premises, defendant no.1 did not do so. Plaintiff and defendant no.1 settled the dispute of rent. After execution of this surrender deed, defendant no.2 and 3 are claiming the tenancy rights and also refused to vacate the tenanted premises. Cause of action lastly arose on 09.10.2012 when the plaintiff requested the defendants to hand over peaceful vacant and physical possession of the premises.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.M , National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Manish Jain on 23 April, 2024

8. We have considered the above arguments advanced by both parties. The opposite party insurance company has mainly taken objection of breach of policy condition on the ground that actual driver of the insured vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. It is also contended that in fact the name of driver was changed by the complainant. In the FIR it was mentioned that Ishwar was driving the vehicle whereas later on Yogendra was named as driver of the vehicle just because Ishwar did not possess a valid and effective driving license. Learned District Commission while arriving to its conclusion in the impugned order has relied upon copy of FIR, Exhibit C-5 in which a third person Kaushal Kumar reported that while the insured vehicle was being driven by Ishwar, 06-07 naxalites came and stopped the vehicle, asked Both appeals dismissed. Page 5 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Manish Jain Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of FA/24/61 & &. Pronouncement:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manish Jain vs B.M , National Insurance Company Ltd on 23 April, 2024

8. We have considered the above arguments advanced by both parties. The opposite party insurance company has mainly taken objection of breach of policy condition on the ground that actual driver of the insured vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. It is also contended that in fact the name of driver was changed by the complainant. In the FIR it was mentioned that Ishwar was driving the vehicle whereas later on Yogendra was named as driver of the vehicle just because Ishwar did not possess a valid and effective driving license. Learned District Commission while arriving to its conclusion in the impugned order has relied upon copy of FIR, Exhibit C-5 in which a third person Kaushal Kumar reported that while the insured vehicle was being driven by Ishwar, 06-07 naxalites came and stopped the vehicle, asked Both appeals dismissed. Page 5 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Manish Jain Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of FA/24/61 & &. Pronouncement:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ankit Jain vs Ram Parkash on 20 September, 2025

12. Now turning to the facts of the present case: Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order, dismissed the application of revisionist moved under section 311 Cr.PC seeking recall of complainant/respondent for cross examination. The impugned order does not terminate the proceedings. It is clear that impugned order is merely a procedural order and therefore falls within category of 'interlocutory order', hence the Crl Rev. No. 541/2025 Ankit Jain Vs. Ram Prakash Page No. 5 of 6 present revision petition is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed in view of bar created by Section 438 of BNSS ( para materia with Section 397 (2) CrPC) in view of the law laid down in 'Sethuraman' (Supra).
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Manish Jain vs Sh. Akash Sharma on 1 November, 2021

1. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff and defendant have friendly relation with each other. As per the plaint, defendant on 25.12.2015 requested for friendly loan of Rs. 85,000/- from the plaintiff. Considering the financial problem of the defendant, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 85,000/- to the defendant which was to be returned within 4-5 days as assured by the defendant. In discharge of his liability, the defendant had issued a cheque bearing no. 013372 dated 31.12.2015 amounting to Rs. 85,000/- to the plaintiff, however, the same was returned with remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide memo dated 01.01.2016. The plaintiff contacted the defendant but the defendant avoided to pay the said amount on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 02.11.2018 but defendant did not pay heed. Hence, the present suit is filed CS No. 09/2019 Manish Jain v. Akash Sharma Page no. 1 of 4 by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 85,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of realization.
Delhi District Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rohit Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, ... on 6 February, 2023

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.2/Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil- Amethi, District- Amethi to consider and decide the pending proceedings ofCase No. 03859 of 2019 (Rohit Singh v. Sanjay Singh) most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned, if there is no other legal impediment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next