Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.52 seconds)
Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd vs Ram Kumar Gupta Huf on 1 September, 2025 cites

Sanjay Gupta vs Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd. on 14 January, 2008

v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF disputes between the parties. The defendant stopped payment of rent on the ground that the plaintiff had obstructed the use of the leased premises for commercial and office purpose. To determine the purpose of letting, the relevant clauses of the lease were examined. Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act were pressed into service to deny the aforesaid defence set up by the defendant. The relevant extract from the said decision reads as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 14 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Dinkerrai Lalit Kumar vs Sukhdayal Rambilas on 19 August, 1946

― 20. The defence set up by the defendant that the plaintiff had agreed to get the user of the premises changed to commercial is in the teeth of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act since the defendant is seeking to contradict, vary, add to the terms of the registered lease deed. The Bombay High Court in Dinkarrai Lalit Kumar & Ors. v. Sukhdayal Rambilas & Ors. AIR 1947 Bombay 293 held that the terms of a contract reduced to writing cannot be ascertained by allowing parole evidence as to what transpired antecedent to the contract or what the parties did subsequent to the contract. Once the contract between the parties is reduced to writing, the court can only look at the writing alone in order to construe what the terms of the contract were‖.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

S.Saktivel (Dead) By Lrs vs M.Venugopal Pillai And Ors on 10 August, 2000

In S. Saktivel (dead) by LRs vs. M. Venugopal Pillai & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 104 the Supreme Court held that where under the law a contract or disposition is required by law to be in writing, its terms cannot be modified, altered or substituted by an oral contract, or disposition. Under Section 92(4) of the Evidence Act no parol evidence is CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 24 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 58 - Full Document

M/S Meters And Instruments Private ... vs Kanchan Mehta on 5 October, 2017

52. It may be noted that in the judgment titled as Meters and Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta reported as (2018) 1 SCC 560 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is essentially a civil wrong and the object of the provision is primarily compensatory, with the punitive element being incorporated mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element. At the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the object of incorporating this provision was to encourage the usage of cheques and enhance the credibility of such instruments so that normal business transactions and settlement of liabilities could be ensured. Therefore, a balance needs to struck by the Court keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of every case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 753 - A K Goel - Full Document
1