Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.62 seconds)Section 4 in The Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Nusli Neville Wadia And Another on 13 December, 2007
15. Further, it is relevant to note that the Supreme Court in the decision
of New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Supra), observed that a
composite proceeding may be initiated both under Sections 4 and 7 of the
Act. Also we are conscious of the circumstance that in this category of
cases the landlord would be required to establish by leading evidence
simultaneously of not only the bona fide need on its part, but also
quantum of damages to which it may be held to be entitled to, in the
event that an order is passed in favour of the establishment. Therefore,
since the proceedings under the Act are contemplated to be in the nature
of summary proceedings, it would be in the fitness of things to enable the
landlord to lead his evidence on both these issues simultaneously in order
to eschew delay. The issues cannot be adjudicated upon in piecemeal.
Vimlesh Kumari Kulshrestha vs Sambhajirao And Anr on 5 February, 2008
8. The issue in this case is fully covered by the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Vimlesh Kumari Kulshrestha v.
Sambhajirao (2008) 5 SCC 58. Paras 7 to 13 of the said judgment are
relevant and the same read as under:-
Vakil Chand Jain vs Prakash Chand Jain on 7 September, 2009
The earlier suit was withdrawn after filing of the subject/present suit.
In these circumstances, the issue is not of applicability of provision of
Order 2 Rule 2 CPC but of withdrawal of suit filed on one cause of
action without seeking permission to file the second/subsequent suit
on the same cause of action. Provision of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC would
have applied if the earlier suit was disposed of on merits and
thereafter on the cause of action in the earlier suit reliefs which were
not claimed were then claimed in the second suit and which b ecome
clear from the expression 'afterwards' in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. A
similar view has been taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
the decision reported as Vakil Chand Jain v. Prakash Chand Jain,
2009 (8) AD (Delhi) 155. Para 26 of this judgment reads as under:-
Section 9 in The Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Dunlop India Ltd. vs Bank Of Baroda & Anr. on 7 January, 2009
10. It becomes pertinent to note that respective cou nsels on opposing
sides have placed reliance on the decision rendered by a learn ed Ju dge of
the Court in Dunlop India Ltd vs. Bank of Baroda & Anr. 3 as affirm ed
by the Division Bench of the Court in L.P.A. which h as sin ce come t o be
reported as MANU/DE/3536/20094.