Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (1.97 seconds)
Manmohan Singh vs Savitri Devi on 2 April, 2024 cites

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

8.7 It is settled law that a landlord need not have know how or experience of the business sought to be started as held in Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manoher Lal Jain, AIR 2006 SC ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 16 /19 1471, Ram Babu Agarwal v. Jay Kishan Das, AIR 2010 SC 721 and Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj AIR 2008 SC 526.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 170 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Pal Singh vs Sunder Singh (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 10 January, 1989

In Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak (1977) 2 SCC 814; Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh (1989) 1 SCC 444; Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002) 6 SCC 16; Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178; and , Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain (2006) 2SCC 724 it was held that the landlord, even if not the absolute owner, is at least one of the co-owners, is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. In the ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 12 /19 present case, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not disputed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 135 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai And Ors on 8 July, 2002

In Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak (1977) 2 SCC 814; Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh (1989) 1 SCC 444; Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002) 6 SCC 16; Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178; and , Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain (2006) 2SCC 724 it was held that the landlord, even if not the absolute owner, is at least one of the co-owners, is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. In the ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 12 /19 present case, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not disputed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 155 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

M/S. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & ... vs Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) By ... on 5 January, 2004

In Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak (1977) 2 SCC 814; Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh (1989) 1 SCC 444; Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002) 6 SCC 16; Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178; and , Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain (2006) 2SCC 724 it was held that the landlord, even if not the absolute owner, is at least one of the co-owners, is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. In the ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 12 /19 present case, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not disputed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 321 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

T.C. Rakhi vs Usha Gujral, Lucknow on 8 October, 1968

In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the point what is meant by the word "Owner" it is held that the general rule is to the effect that the petitioner has to have a better title than the respondent and is not required to show that he has the best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement of ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to avoid misuse of the provision.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 84 - I D Dua - Full Document

Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors on 26 August, 1987

In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the point what is meant by the word "Owner" it is held that the general rule is to the effect that the petitioner has to have a better title than the respondent and is not required to show that he has the best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement of ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to avoid misuse of the provision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 577 - G L Oza - Full Document

Milk Food Ltd. vs Kiran Khanna on 4 May, 1993

It need not be proved in the absolute sense of the term of ownership as laid down in Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) AD (Del) 819, B. Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR 2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646 that the petitioner to an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title only to the tenant.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 26 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next