Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (2.43 seconds)

Milkfood Ltd vs M/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2004

14. We may now deal with the last submission of Mr Shah that even if the aforesaid decisions of the learned Single Judges may not be treated to have laid down the correct law, this Court should not disturb that view because the doctrine of Stare Decisis should be applied. Strong reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Ranbir Singh v. Kartar Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1858 and in Milkfood Ltd. v. GMC Ice cream (P) Ltd., 2004 (4) SCALE 291 in support of the submission that the view which has been holding for a long time should not be disturbed only because another view is possible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 144 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Ramniklal Dwarkadas Modi vs Mohanlal Laximichand And Ors. on 14 October, 1976

The object of this provision for giving one month's notice is twofold - the first is to give the tenant an opportunity to pay/tender the standard rent which has become due and which would enable the tenant to earn protection granted by sub-section (1) of Section 12, and secondly in case the tenant has any dispute about standard rent, to give the tenant an opportunity to raise such a dispute. The tenant may raise such a dispute, within one month from the date of service of the notice, either by filing an application before the Rent Court under Section 11(3) of the Act (Explanation to Section 12) or in his reply to the notice (vide Full Bench decision in Ramniklal Dwarkadas v. Mohanlal, 18 GLR 32).
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next