Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)Sangeeta Prints vs Hemal Prints And Ors. on 6 June, 1985
In Sangeeta
Prints v. Hemal Prints, the question was whether in the absence of a special
provision under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, the Small
Causes Court at Bombay could have directed deposit of rent.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, ... vs Mr. Thakorbhai Ranchhodji Desai, Mr. ... on 21 February, 2003
In Bharat Petroleum Corporation v.
Thakorbhai Ranchodji Desai, an order had been passed by the Small Causes
Court at Mumbai requiring deposit of rent. If the order was under Order XV
A CPC, it was not an appealable order. If it was under Order XXXIX Rule 10
CPC, it would still not be appealable. Therefore, there was no occasion for
the High Court in the said case to interpret the expressions 'rent' or 'mesne
profits' and 'such an amount' occurring in Order XV A CPC.
Smt. Chandra Prabha Saraff vs Parvez Ahmed on 2 March, 2012
The decision in
Chandra Prabha Saraff v. Parvez Ahmed also did not deal with the issues
that arise in the present case.
State Of Maharashtra vs Bharat Shanti Lal Shah & Ors on 1 September, 2008
He referred to the decisions in
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd. (2008) 4 SCC 755,
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1135
and Dharmender Kirthal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2013 SC 2569.
Pritam Dass vs Jiya Rani on 14 May, 1981
Relying on the decision of this Court in Pritam Dass v. Kumari Jiya Rani
1981 (2) R.C.J. 495 (FB), he submitted that in the context of Section 15 (1)
of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('DRCA') the Full Bench of this Court had
observed that it was open to the Rent Controller to pass an order under
Section 15 (1) DRCA on a prima facie view of the evidence even where the
tenant denies the existence of a tenancy. He, therefore, pleaded that the word
'rent' in Order XV A CPC should be realistically interpreted in that
background for the purpose for which the provision was introduced.
Yash Ahuja & Ors vs Medical Council Of India & Ors on 17 September, 2009
7. Mr. Gurnani submitted that the word 'rent' in the above provision is not
qualified by the word 'admitted' and is, therefore, different from the wording
of Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC which envisages payment of an admitted
amount. Relying on the decisions in Yash Ahuja v. Medical Council of India
AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2758 and State of Gujarat v. Justice R.A. Mehta
(Retd.) AIR 2013 SC 693, he submitted that the Court should adopt a
purposive construction of the word 'rent' so that the legislative object of
CS(OS) No. 1698 of 2011 Page 3 of 9
Order XV A CPC is furthered.
Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882
Novartis Ag vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 April, 2013
He also relied upon the decisions in Novartis
AG v. Union of India AIR 2013 SC 1311 and Gursahai v. Commissioner of
I. T. Punjab AIR 1963 SC 1062 to urge that the interpretation of a statute
should be such as to make it workable.
Gujarat Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd vs Essar Power Ltd on 13 March, 2008
He referred to the decisions in
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd. (2008) 4 SCC 755,
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1135
and Dharmender Kirthal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2013 SC 2569.
1