Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.37 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 37 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Kanta Kochhar & Anr. vs Sir Ganga Ram Trust Society on 21 October, 2009
and in the written statement, the relationship of landlord
and tenant was admitted. Ld.Counsel submitted that in the written
statement, the appellant/tenant never took the plea that M/s Arya
Dharma Sewa Sangh is a trust and not a society. It was further
stated that AW6 Sh.S.K.Jain in the cross examination has
RCT No.162/16 Page No. 16 of 29
H.K.Oberoi vs M/s Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
specifically stated that M/s Arya Dharma Sewa Sangh is a
registered society. Ld.Counsel submitted that a registered society
being a legal entity is capable to sue and being sued in its name
and reliance has been placed upon Kanta Kochhar & Anr. Vs Sir
Ganga Ram Trust Society 2010(114) DRJ 123. Ld.Counsel for
respondent no.1 submitted that M/s Atma Ram Properties Pvt.Ltd.
Purchased the property from M/s Arya Dharma Sewa Sangh and
even at that time unauthorised construction in utter violation of
the prepetual lease deed subsisted and therefore, cause of action
accrued in favour of M/s Atma Ram Properties Pvt.Ltd.
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs Jai Prakash University And Ors on 24 July, 2001
In Dhurandhar Prasad Singh's case(Supra),
it was further held that in cases covered by Rule 10, the
Legislature has not prescribed any such procedure in the event of
failure to apply for leave of the court to continue the proceeding
by or against the person upon whom interest has devolved during
the pendency of a suit which shows that the Legislature was
conscious of this eventuality and yet has not prescribed that
failure would entail dismissal of the suit as it was intended that
the proceeding would continue by or against the original party
although he ceased to have any interest in the subject of dispute in
the event of failure to apply for leave to continue by or against the
person upon whom the interest has devolved for bringing him on
the record. Thus, the petition in the hand of M/s Atma Ram
Properties is not a new petition, and therefore, there was no need
to amend the petition. Similarly, in respect of the petition having
been signed by AW6, I do not find any infirmity as in the cross
examination AW6 stated that it is a society not a trust and he has
duly been authorised to sign the plaint. The witness has also
produced Power of Attorney.
Faqir Chand vs Shri Ram Rattan Bhanot on 30 January, 1973
(k) DRC Act as discussed in Faqir Chand's case(Supra) which
reads as under:
Sharadamma vs Mohammed Pyrejan(D) Tr.Lrs.& Anr on 23 September, 2015
In Sharadamma 's case(Supra), the judgment of Dhurandhar
Prasad Singh's case(Supra) was relied upon.
Bhagwati Prasad vs Shri Chandramaul on 19 October, 1965
Ld.Counsel for the respondent relied upon in this
regard Bhagwati Prasad Vs Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735
wherein it was interalia held that if a plea is not specifically
made and yet it is covered by an issue by implication and the
RCT No.162/16 Page No. 18 of 29
H.K.Oberoi vs M/s Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
parties knew that the said plea was involved in the trial, then the
mere fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the pleadings
would not necessarily disentitle a party from relying upon it if it is
satisfactorily proved by evidence.
Rashida Begum vs General Sales Ltd on 9 July, 2002
In Rashida
Begum's case(Supra), it was interalia held as under: