Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)

Firm Ganeshram Harvilas And Anr. vs Ramchandra Rao on 30 January, 1970

In Firm Ganeshram Harvilas and another Vs. Ramachandra Rao [1970 MPLJ 902] a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had to consider the effect of Section 12(3) and Section 13(2) of the Act. The Division Bench has held, interalia, that every kind of dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant is within the scope of Section 13(2) of the Act. This, in our view, is too broad a proposition to merit acceptance. With regard to the word thereafter in second part of sub- section (1) of Section 13, the Division Bench rightly concluded that it meant after one month of the service of the writ of summons on the tenant, or, where time is extended, after the time so extended under the first part of sub-section (1).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Jivrambhai And Anr. vs Amarsingh on 28 April, 1972

In Jivrambhai and another Vs. Amarsingh [1972 MPLJ 785] the observation of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that as soon as the dispute under Section 13(2) of the Act is raised and it is brought to the notice of the Court the operation of Section 13(1) of the Act gets arrested so far as the amount to be deposited in Court is concerned and it remains in suspense until provisional rent is fixed, is also too wide a statement to be correct.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1