Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)

D.Devaji vs K.Sudarashana Rao on 7 October, 1993

(i) the burden of proving that the respondent does not own any non- residential premises is on him Under Sections 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act and as the same has not been discharged by him, he is not entitled to obtain eviction as per the decision of the Supreme Court in D. Dvaji v. K. Sudarshana Rao, 1994 (1) APLJ 5 (SC) and the Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Vidyavathi Bai v. Shanker Lal; 1987 (2) ALT 550.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 38 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Kalpaka Shrimp Exports, Azhikode And ... vs The Kerala Financial Corporation And ... on 7 June, 1989

14. Order 29 Rule 1 C.P.C. says that in suits by or against a Corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the Corporation by the Secretary, or any Director or other Principal Officer of the Corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case. Under Order-6 Rule 14, every pleading shall be signed by the party and where for some good cause he is unable to sign it may be signed by any person duly authorised by him to sue and defend on his behalf. Order 29 Rule 1 has been interpreted by Kerala High Court in the decision reported in M/s. Kalpaka Shrimp Exports v. Kerala Financial Corporation, . that it is only permissive and not mandatory and that any person authorised by the Board of Directors can file or defend the suit on behalf of the company. The next question is whether such authorisation must be in writing.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next