Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)Section 29 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 12 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Amarjit Singh vs Smt. Khatoon Quamarain on 18 November, 1986
27. The decision in the case of Amarjit Singh v. Smt. Khatoonquara in AIR 1987 SC 74 1, relied upon by Mr. Vakil simply follows the law laid down in Pasupuleti's case (supra), and goes no further, and that is why in Amarjit Singh's case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the last lines of paragraph I of the report, said that the changes either in fact or in law must be taken cognizance of by the Courts, but that must be done in a cautious manner. Thus even the last mention ed judgment of the Supreme Court in the case I of Amadit Singh does not-help the submission of Mr. Vakil before me in support of Civil Application No. 2411 of 1990 that this Court should either itself investigate into the facts of the subsequent events or direct the trial Court to do that exercise.
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs The Motor & General Traders on 18 March, 1975
Now as I read the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pasupuleti's case (supra), it is clear to me that there the facts about subsequent events were admitted facts. Those facts were not disputed and it was because those facts about subsequent events were not in dispute that the Supreme Court held that those facts could be and should be taken into account while deciding the matter even at the revisional stage.
1