Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)
H.S. Dhillon (Retd) vs Akhilesh Kumar Sinha on 22 September, 2022 cites

Mehmooda Gulshan vs Javaid Hussain Mungloo on 17 February, 2017

Furthermore, as recently as in the case of 'Mehmooda Gulshan' (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court re-affirmed the said view by holding that merely because the landlord had not examined a member of his family, who intended to do business on the premises, he could not be non-suited on that ground if otherwise he had been able to successfully establish his genuine need. Therefore, it is amply clear that the Appellate Authority had acted in contravention to the aforesaid settled principle of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Ajita Sharma @ Sweety Alias Babi vs Rakesh Kumar Sharma on 13 February, 1998

Joginder Singh' Delhi High Court DOD 09.08.2004; 'M/s Silvertoe Mfg vs. Smt. Usha Soi' Delhi High Court; 'V.K. Kumaresan vs. P. Jayaseeian' Madras High Court DOD 03.02.2021; 'Sweety vs. Rakesh Kumar' 2016 SCC Online P&H 4598; 'K.R. Chopra vs. Manjit Inder Kaur' 2003 SCC Online P&H 480; and 'Natha @ Jeewan vs. Ashok Kumar' 2016 SCC Online P&H 7721.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - V S Aggarwal - Full Document

Vasu Dev Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 November, 2006

Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to point out that the present rent petition was instituted before the Rent Controller on 27.10.1997, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.12.2002 in view of the notification dated 07.11.2002 vide which the Act was made inapplicable to UT, Chandigarh. The said notification was later set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 1 of 34 ::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 09:44:11 ::: CR No.4928 of 2015 (O&M) 2 07.11.2006 passed in CA-4688-2006 titled as 'Vasu Dev vs. Union of India'. On 11.12.2006 an application for restoration of the present rent petition was moved by the petitioner, however, since the tenant was allegedly evading service in the restoration application, a fresh petition under Section 13 (second petition) of the Act was filed wherein it was specified in para No.5 that if the respondent appears in the restoration application, the second petition would be withdrawn, else the second petition would be pursued. Subsequently on 28.08.2009, the respondent put in an appearance in the restoration application of the first rent petition and accordingly the same was restored to its original number vide order dated 22.10.2009 and the second rent petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Hence, this revision petition emanates from the first rent petition filed by the petitioner/landlord.
Supreme Court of India Cites 97 - Cited by 121 - S B Sinha - Full Document

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

At the outset, it would be most relevant to discuss the scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of the courts below. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.'s case (supra), has held that none of the Rent Control Acts empowers the High Court to interfere with findings of fact, unless such findings are perverse or result in gross miscarriage of justice. It was thus held as under:-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 47 - Cited by 510 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1   2 Next