Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)
(O&M;) M/S Oberoi Timber Traders vs Narbir Singh Etc on 31 August, 2018 cites

M/S Oberoi Timber Traders vs Narbir Singh Etc on 7 April, 2015

Harbir Singh in his cross-examination admitted that they had given a plot on rent to Jangjeet Enterprises (Gas Agency), which is one plot away from the premises in dispute, therefore, the landlords had not come to the Court with clean hands. His cross-examination further revealed that he had been running his office in the plot in which Jangjeet Enterprises was tenant but on the other hand, he alleged that he was doing a job and had no place to operate his business. Similarly, Narbir Singh admitted that he had been doing 8 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 00:31:02 ::: C.R. No.1258 of 2009 (O&M) -9- business since the year 1980, thus, the statements and affidavits given in the second rent petition i.e. M/s R.K. Traders vs. Narbir Singh and others were necessary and essential for proper adjudication of the lis and thus, preferred an application for additional evidence. Another application for additional evidence to place on record statement of Kamal Oberoi given in the Civil Suit No.317 of 23.10.1982 was filed before the Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed on the alleged reasoning that the contents of the application were silent, in other words, were neither here nor there.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Prabha Arora & Anr vs Brij Mohini Anand & Ors on 31 October, 2007

It was also contended that case law on the point of bona fide necessity to be seen at the time of filing, is no longer a good law, in view of the ratio decidendi culled out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabha Arora and another Vs. Brij Mohini Anand and others 2007 (2) RCR 600 as the subsequent events can always be looked into for adjudication of the controversy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 20 - M Katju - Full Document

Hasmat Rai & Anr vs Raghunath Prasad on 28 April, 1981

On the other hand, Mr. Arun Nehra and Mr. Sant Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in 2nd revision petition adopted the arguments raised in the 1st revision petition and supplemented further raising the plea that rent petition in M/s Vishwakarma Heat Treatment Plant was filed on 15.09.2001. The landlord was confronted with the aforementioned fact in examination- in-chief. Civil Misc. Application No.21711-CII of 2013 was filed to bring on record jamabandi to show ownership that the landlord is owner of 3 acres of land. No notification under Section 4 or 6 of the Land Acquisition Act has been placed on record and factum of running of the marriage palace was not denied. Reliance was laid to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hasmat Rai and another Vs. Raghunath Prashad AIR 1981 SC 1711 by submitting that where the landlord filed a suit for recovery of possession of small shop on the ground of personal requirement and other portion had fallen vacant against which the landlord had already obtained decree for eviction but had not obtained possession, the High Court can always take into consideration the subsequent event and reject the rent petition on this 10 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 00:31:02 ::: C.R. No.1258 of 2009 (O&M) -11- ground alone.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 280 - D A Desai - Full Document

British Motor Car Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Sewak Sabha Charitable Trust (Regd.) on 17 July, 2003

11 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2018 00:31:02 ::: C.R. No.1258 of 2009 (O&M) -12- 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 162 to contend that where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the impugned order suffers from a procedural illegality or irregularity and not otherwise. M/s British Motor Car Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sewak Sabha Charitable Trust (Regd) 2003 (2) RCR (Rent) 606 to contend that similar provisions vis-à-vis vacation and non-occupation of the premises have been enacted in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act, 1949 and while discussing the Full Bench, it has been held that where the parties had already understood each other's case and necessary evidence was adduced, technical ground of omission to plead requirement in specific terms cannot be a ground for non-suiting the landlord.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 10 - H Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next