Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.28 seconds)
M/S.Zubaidha Stores Reptd. By Its ... vs K.Ponnuswamy on 11 April, 2019 cites

Sri. Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works And Ors. vs Rangaswamy Chettiar on 26 March, 1980

28.In Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works vs Rangaswamy Chettiar, (1980) 4 SCC 259, it was held that “the dominant idea conveyed by the incorporation of the words ‘to satisfy itself’ under Section 25 appears to be that the power conferred on the High Court under Section 25 is essentially a power of superintendence. Therefore, despite the wide language employed in Section 25 the http://www.judis.nic.in 11 High Court quite obviously should not interfere with findings of fact merely because it does not agree with the finding of the subordinate authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 134 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithabrao Maruthirao Janagavai on 3 April, 1975

The power conferred on the High Court under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but in the words of Untwalia,J. In Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval [Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval, (1975) 2 SCC 246] , ‘it is not wide enough to make the High Court a second court of first appeal.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 62 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

R. Srinivasan vs V. Thangaraju And Ors. on 28 January, 1999

36.As far as the decision rendered in R Srinivasan vs V.Thangaraju cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, on facts the court there found the pleading were vague. http://www.judis.nic.in 15 There was no attempt was made by the landlord to establish the fact that the tenants were to be evicted for bonafide purpose contemplated as under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

S. Saraswathi Ammal, Wife Of N. ... vs R.S. Mallikarjun Raja And Ors. on 20 January, 1997

50.The court in Saraswathi Ammal vs R.S.Mallikarjunun Raja 1997 (2) MLJ 474 and in a host of other cases it has been held that it is well settled that the building need not be in a dilapidated condition or in a dangerous state of affairs for ordering eviction under aforesaid provision. It has also been held that the landlord need not produce currency as long as he has the financial capability http://www.judis.nic.in 20 to put up new construction in place of the existing construction.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Nidhi vs Ram Kripal Sharma (D) Thr. Lrs on 7 February, 2017

60.It may be apt to refer to a passaged from Nidhi v. Ram Kripal Sharma, (2017) 5 SCC 640. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “the legislations made for dealing with such landlord- tenant disputes were pro-tenant as the court tends to bend towards the tenant in order to do justice with the tenant; but in the process of doing justice the court cannot be overzealous and forget its duty towards the landlord also as ultimately, it is the landlord who owns the property and is entitled to possession of the same when he proves his bona fide beyond reasonable doubt as it is in the case before this Court.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 18 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Gaya Prasad vs Shri Pradeep Srivastava on 7 February, 2001

In Gaya Prasad vs Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604 the Hon’ble http://www.judis.nic.in 26 Supreme Court held that the crucial date for deciding as to bona fide requirement of landlord is the date of his application for eviction. The litigation continued for 23 years and during that period the son of the landlord joined Provincial Medical Service and was posted at different places. The Court refused to take notice of the subsequent event holding that the crucial date was the date of filing of the eviction petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 297 - Full Document

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs Dilbahar Singh on 27 August, 2014

26.As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78 it was held that the “Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act provides http://www.judis.nic.in 9 that the High Court on the application of an aggrieved person may call for and examine the record of the appellate authority to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein. The High Court in exercise of its revisional power may modify, annul or reverse the order or decision impugned before it or remit the matter for reconsideration. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because on reappreciation the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law.”
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 47 - Cited by 510 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1   2 Next