Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.58 seconds)
Bibi Dhira Bala Malhotra vs Sh. S.K. Prakash on 16 December, 2013 cites

Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006

32. As regards respondent's objection to the effect that petitioner has no experience in fashion and retail, including marketing and retail advisory and the terminology of business used in the petition are vague and incapable of interpretation and she does not wish to carry any business but wants to oust him from the premises for settling scores against him, petitioner has refuted his objection and relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in case titled Mohinder Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain and another case titled Ram Babu Agarwal Vs. Jay Kishan Das to argue that past­experience is not a pre­requisite for starting a new venture. The findings given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in these two judgments cited by petitioner's counsel do not require any discussion and the objection raised by respondent does not constitute any ground which would require adjudication. The relevant portion of the rulings are recorded below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 170 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Ram Babu Agarwal vs Jay Kishan Das on 7 October, 2009

32. As regards respondent's objection to the effect that petitioner has no experience in fashion and retail, including marketing and retail advisory and the terminology of business used in the petition are vague and incapable of interpretation and she does not wish to carry any business but wants to oust him from the premises for settling scores against him, petitioner has refuted his objection and relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in case titled Mohinder Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain and another case titled Ram Babu Agarwal Vs. Jay Kishan Das to argue that past­experience is not a pre­requisite for starting a new venture. The findings given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in these two judgments cited by petitioner's counsel do not require any discussion and the objection raised by respondent does not constitute any ground which would require adjudication. The relevant portion of the rulings are recorded below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 351 - Full Document

Shri Sukhbir Singh vs Dr. I.P. Singh on 4 September, 2012

17. Advocate Sh. Nitin Soni, learned counsel for petitioner on his part has relied upon judgments reported in cases titled Sh. Sukhbir Singh vs. Dr. I.P. Singh in RC Rev. 261/2010 ; Pradeep Kumar Tyagi vs. Smt. Bimla Tyagi in RC Rev. 105/2012; S. Harbans Singh Sahni vs. Smt. Vinod Sikari in RC Rev. 27/2010; Mohinder Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain in Appeal (civil) 1263 of 2006; Ram Babu Aggarwal vs. Jai Kishan Das, AIR 2010 SC 721 = (2010) 1 SCC 164 and Abdul Kadir vs. Smt. Prakash Rani Bhalla in RC Rev. 116/2012 in support of his contention for seeking eviction order against respondent Sh. S.K. Prakash.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 15 - M L Mehta - Full Document
1   2 3 Next