Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Section 105 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 202 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Shri Sudhir Sabharwal vs Shri Rajesh Pruthi on 7 August, 2014
21. In substance, it is his submission, that Mr.Aneja cannot
rely on MoU. He also stated, in fact, no issue has been framed
in the suits for Mr.Aneja to argue that the respondent has to
pay the amount as sought to be claimed by the appellant. He
stated if a party intend to setup a case different from landlord
and tenant, it has to specifically plead and place evidence in
FAO 175/2021 and connected matters Page 21 of 34
that regard. He has relied upon the judgment in the case of
Sudhir Sabharwal v. Rajesh Pruthi, 218 (2015) DLT 290.
Mr. Sethi has also relied upon the order dated January 20,
2020 of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in transfer petition
being TR.P.(C.)
Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Raghubir Rai vs Prem Lata & Anr on 15 May, 2014
22. According to him, under Order XVA CPC, the Court
not only can direct payment of admitted rent but can also
direct something more than that by referring to the judgment in
the case of Raghubir Rai v. Prem Lata & Ors., 211 (2014)
DLT 516.
Sunil Kapoor vs Himmat Singh & Ors on 22 September, 2008
On similar proposition, he relied upon the judgment
in the case of Sunil Kapoor v. Himmat Singh & Ors., 2010
SCC OnLine Del 354. It is his plea that the appellant cannot
take recourse to the pending suit (being CS (COMM)
1218/2018) to frustrate the provisions of Order XVA CPC. In
conclusion he stated that the impugned order is not perverse in
nature but based on reasons and seeks the dismissal of the
appeals.
Nutan Tyagi vs Nirmala Dabas on 22 July, 2016
In the case of Nutan Tyagi v. Nirmala Dabas, 232
(2016) DLT 60, wherein it was similarly held as under: