Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.59 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Delhi Police Act, 1978
Shantilal Thakordas & Ors vs Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala on 23 August, 1976
After examining the facts in Shantilal's case the Supreme Court then found that the partnership which was reconstituted after the death of Thakordas did not include Harish Thakordas who was the minor son of Thakordas. It was also noted that Harish had not been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. He had, therefore, no interest in the partnership firm On this ground the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the heirs of the original landlord by holding that:--
Phul Rani & Ors vs Naubat Rai Ahluwalia on 14 March, 1973
"In our considered opinion in face of the wordings of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Act, the view expressed in Phool Rani's case as stated above, is not correct."
Institute Of Radio Technology vs Pandurang Baburao on 12 December, 1944
12. One of the earliest judgments which was cited was Institute of Radio Technology v. Pandurang Baburao 47 Bom LR 825 : AIR 1946 Bom 212. That was a case under the Bombay Rent Restriction Act, 1939 Section 11 of which is similar to the provisions contained in Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act with which we are now concerned. It was contended before the Division Bench which decided in that case that the words in that section were that the premises must be required by the landlord for his own occupation, that the first plaintiff was dead and the second plaintiff, who was his son, did not require those blocks for his own occupation. It was found on the evidence led that the first plaintiff, when he was alive, had gone into the witness-box and stated that his
family consisted of his son, his widowed sister and others. Thereafter the Division Bench expressed its opinion in the following terms:--