Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.35 seconds)
Anil Kumar Jain vs Subhash Chand Chawla on 17 April, 2023 cites

M/S. Variety Emporium vs V. R. M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina on 27 November, 1984

2023.04.17 16:38:27 +0530 itself further strengthens the case of the respondent that the bonafide need of petitioner is artificial and not genuine. Had it been bonafide petitioner would not have given to sub let in the lease deed itself executed by the petitioner himself in favour of his family members. It is further argued that from the additional affidavit filed by the respondent on subsequent event it shows that despite of number of shops having got vacated, petitioner or any of his family member is not ready to use it for bonafide need. Offering respondent in his cross examination as an alternative shop which petitioner have got vacated and has its vacant possession would not show that the bonafide need of the petitioner is genuine as this offer would have been made by the petitioner earliest when his family members had been sub letting the various properties. Such an offer is merely an eye wash for the name sake and would not in any circumstances prove the bonafide need of the petitioner. Since subsequent events have taken place, the same require to be taken into consideration as has been held in the case title M/s Variety Emporium Vs. V R M Mohd. Ibrahim Naina reported in ARIR 1985 SC in para 16 at page 210 and also in another case Sobti Furniture Mart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ravinder Kumar Suri reported in 228 (2016) DLT 8 in paras 7­8 at page 9.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 107 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 Next