Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.40 seconds)
Dic India Ltd vs Gurdeep Kaur on 27 April, 2024 cites

President Of F. 1250 Chowghat Firka ... vs Muthavally Seydali'S Son Valiyakath ... on 16 November, 1951

24. Dy. Government Advocate, Mr. Rafiq, has cited before me the case of President of F. 1250 Chowghat Firka P.C.C. Co- operative Society Ltd., A. C. Raman v. Muthavally Seydali's Son Valiyakath Kaithakkal Kunhi Bara Haji, AIR 1953 Mad 996. Their Lordships in para 5 has held that the landlord cannot challenge notice or termination of tenancy but must sue for damages for willful negligence of tenant. There is nothing in the section to compel to defendant who has terminated the tenancy and who has offered to deliver vacant possession and whose offer has been refused by the landlord on the ground that the possession shall be taken back only on the payment of Rs. 5,000/- by way of damages. If the tenant fails to comply with the demand for damages, however, legitimate it might be the plaintiff will have a right to sue for damages for the negligence, default or other acts of the defendant.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers??? ... vs Harbans Lal Gupta on 5 December, 2008

21.In the case of "Tamil Naidu Handloom Weavers Society Vs Harbans Lal Gupta" 2009 (107) DRJ (418), in terms of the lease deed, the tenant terminated the lease by three months notice and demanded the balance security deposit from the landlord. The landlord refused to take back the possession and raised various issues with respect to non-restoration of the suit property as well as non- payment of electricity and water charges whereupon the tenant filed a suit for mandatory injunction and recovery of security deposit. The landlord made a counter claim for recovery of rent up to the date of possession as well as damages to the suit property. The High Court while adjudicating the matter, reiterated that where the tenant vacates the tenanted premises and notifies to the landlord to take the delivery of possession, the lease comes to an end and in case, landlord refused to accept the possession, it would amount to delivery of possession and the possession shall be deemed to have been delivered to the landlord.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 10 - J R Midha - Full Document

Central Bank Of India vs Ravindra And Ors on 18 October, 2001

27.In Central Bank of India v. Ravindra 2002 1 SCC 367, the Supreme Court observed that a person is entitled for compensation for the deprivation of the money due to the creditor which was not paid, or, in other words, was withheld from him by the debtor after the time when payment should have been made, in breach of his legal rights, and interest was a compensation whether the compensation was liquidated under an agreement or statute.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 973 - Full Document

Laxman Singh Chauhan@Raja Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 August, 2018

19.The law in respect to the termination of lease by a tenant is well settled. In case, a tenant vacates the tenanted premises and notifies the landlord to take delivery of the possession, the lease comes to an end. The refusal of the landlord to accept the possession would amount to delivery of possession and the possession shall be deemed to have been delivered to the landlord though, the landlord may not accept the same. A similar issue arose for consideration in the matter of "Raja Laksman Singh Vs State" AIR 1988 Rajasthan 44 where the tenant terminated the tenancy and offered the vacant possession to the landlord, who, however, refused to take the possession and put conditions to it. It was held by the court that the possession shall be CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1