Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
M/S. Rajesh Shoe Store & Ors vs Naresh Kumar & Ors on 29 August, 2012 cites

Rajesh Shoe vs Naresh Kumar on 12 October, 2001

13. So far as the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants in the case of Uda Ram (supra), is concerned, suffice it to state the said judgment is distinguishable on the facts, as in that case while dealing-with the second appeal, the Court found that both the courts below had dismissed the suit for eviction, which was filed on the ground of bonafide necessity of the landlord in respect of suit shop, measuring S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL No.309/2003 M/s Rajesh Shoe Store & Ors. Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - P C Tatia - Full Document

Dattatraya Laxman Kamble vs Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde & Anr on 28 April, 1999

Decision dt: 29/08/2012 14/15 having necessary fund to start the business is not at all necessary in view of the law laid down by this Court in the above decision namely Dattatraya Laxman Kamble (supra). That apart, as the appellant has got immovable property, it would not be difficult for him to raise necessary fund and therefore we hold that the finding on this point of the courts below is not sustainable."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 204 - Full Document

Uda Ram vs Pyare Lal on 11 July, 2002

13. So far as the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants in the case of Uda Ram (supra), is concerned, suffice it to state the said judgment is distinguishable on the facts, as in that case while dealing-with the second appeal, the Court found that both the courts below had dismissed the suit for eviction, which was filed on the ground of bonafide necessity of the landlord in respect of suit shop, measuring S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL No.309/2003 M/s Rajesh Shoe Store & Ors. Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1