Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)

Deena Nath vs Pooran Lal on 11 July, 2001

The judgment / order of the court / authority for eviction of a tenant which does not Page 9 of 23 show that the court / authority has applied its mind to these statutory requirements cannot be sustained and the superior court will be justified in upsetting such judgment / order in appeal / second appeal / revision. Bonafide requirement, on a first look, appears to be a question of fact. But in recording a finding on the question the court has to bear in mind that statutory mandate incorporated in Section 12(1)(f). If it is found that the court has not applied the statutory provisions to the evidence on record in its proper perspective then the finding regarding bonafide requirement would cease to be a mere finding of fact, for such erroneous finding illegally arrived at would vitiate the entire judgment."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 484 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors on 6 December, 2004

The said attorney did not explain as to what was the reason based on which petitioner did not appear in the court. It is trite to mention here that facts which are within the personal knowledge of a person can be deposed by the said person only. An attorney cannot depose in place and instead of principal. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case law titled as Janki Vashdeo Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 439. Therefore, by not examining herself, petitioner failed to prove her bonafide need.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 1219 - H K Sema - Full Document
1   2 Next