Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)Section 27 in The Delhi Police Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
The Delhi Police Act, 1978
Atma Ram vs Shakuntala Rani on 30 August, 2005
In view of the aforesaid principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Atma Ram (supra), it has to be held that the tenant must comply with the requirements of Order XV Rule 5 CPC and make the deposits strictly in accordance with the procedure contained therein. A deposit which is not made in consonance with the aforesaid Rule cannot enure to the benefit of the tenant and, therefore, only that amount can be deducted from the "monthly amount" required to be deposited by the tenant during the pendency of the suit which is specifically mentioned in Explanation 3 to Rule 5 (1) of Order XV CPC.
Section 27 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Delhi Police Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934
Kuldeep Singh vs Ganpat Lal & Anr on 5 December, 1995
The Supreme Court after considering a number of its earlier decisions in Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal , Jagat Prasad v. Distt.