Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (Dead) By Lrs vs Naresh Chandra . on 8 December, 2021 cites

Nirbhai Kumar vs Maya Devi And Ors on 24 March, 2009

A Bench of three learned Judges has affirmed the view taken in the aforesaid judgment but then, we must note that the decision of the Bench of three learned Judges in Nirbhai Kumar v. Maya Devi & Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 399 relates to the requirement under the first part of the first proviso to section 21 of the Act, namely the embargo against entertaining the application except after expiry of three years of the transfer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 19 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Martin & Harris Limited vs With Additional Distt. Judge & Ors on 11 December, 1997

In Martin & Harris Ltd. (supra), the tenant had, in fact, raised objection, which he did not press, whereas, in the facts of this case, the tenant has not raised any objection in not only the reply notice, but even in the written statement before the Rent Controller. What fortifies us further is that even in the appeal before the appellate Court, the tenant did not urge the ground. If at all there is a case for waiver, this would be one. (10) However, under Section 21 of the Act, as correctly pointed out by the learned Amicus, under the second proviso, in respect of a non-residential premises or a building let out exclusively for non-residential purpose, an order for payment of an amount not exceeding two months’ rent as compensation is called for:
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 64 - Full Document

Seth Badri Prasad And Others vs Seth Nagarmal And Others on 9 December, 1958

On the contrary the appellant joined issues on merits by seeking permission to cross-examine the plaintiff on merits of the case on grounds as pleaded 7 CA No. 7554/2021 (@ SLP(C)No. 3432/ 2017) under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. When the decree was passed against the appellant, even while challenging the said decree in appeal no such ground was taken in the memo of appeal, nor was it argued before the first appellate court. Under these circumstances, the High Court rightly held that the contention, regarding the suit being premature as filed before expiry of six months from the date of the notice, must be treated to have been waived by the appellant. Joining issue on this question learned Senior Counsel, Shri Rao, for the appellant, invited our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Badri Prasad v. Nagarmal [AIR 1959 SC 559 : 1959 Supp (1) SCR 769] . In that case a suit filed by an unregistered company was found to be hit by the provisions of Section 4 sub-section (2) of the Rewa State Companies Act, 1935. The said contention was permitted to be taken for the first time during averments in appeal before this Court. It was held that as this contention went to the root of the maintainability of the suit it could be agitated as a pure question of law. We fail to appreciate how that decision can be of any avail to the appellant in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 41 - S K Das - Full Document
1