Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.35 seconds)The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887
Section 19 in The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
M/S. Shantez vs M/S. Applause Bhansali Films on 17 March, 2009
46. The decisions cited by Mr.Mail of Shantez and anr vs
Applause Bhansali Films and Rajesh Mitra vs Karnani Properties
(supra), do not assist the case of the Defendant No.2 for the reason
that while deciding the entitlement for a decree on admission, the
admissions given in facts of that case have to be considered. There
is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in the said
decisions but each case will have to be determined in its own facts.
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976
Section 28 in The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Nagin Mansukhlal Dagli vs Haribhai Manibhai Patel on 8 February, 1979
32. The decisions in the cases of Nagin Mansukhlal Dogli (supra),
Mahadev P. Kambekar (supra), Prabhudas Damodhar Kotecha
(supra) and (iv) Vaijayanti Amar Vazalwar (supra), on which the
reliance has been placed would not assist the case of the
18 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2025 22:22:20 :::
fa1811-2024f
Defendant No.2 in the facts of the present case.
Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha & Ors vs Manharbala Jeram Dmodar & Anr on 13 August, 2013
32. The decisions in the cases of Nagin Mansukhlal Dogli (supra),
Mahadev P. Kambekar (supra), Prabhudas Damodhar Kotecha
(supra) and (iv) Vaijayanti Amar Vazalwar (supra), on which the
reliance has been placed would not assist the case of the
18 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2025 22:22:20 :::
fa1811-2024f
Defendant No.2 in the facts of the present case.
Rajesh Mitra @ Rajesh Kumar Mitra & Anr vs Karnani Properties Limited on 8 December, 2022
17. Drawing support from the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Shantez & Anr. vs. Applause Bhansali
Films & Ors. [2009 9 Bom.C.R. 799] and Rajesh Mitra alias Rajesh
Kumar Mitra and Anr. vs. Karnani Properties Ltd. [2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2607], he submits that the nature of admission is not
conclusive to decree the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. He
9 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2025 22:22:20 :::
fa1811-2024f
submits that there is no illegality in his possession as it is the
specific case of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant No.1 had inducted
him as a licensee. He submits that the Trial Court has not come to
any finding that the suit is required to be decreed based on the
admission about ownership. He submits that the maintainability of
the suit itself is in question as the reliefs are sought not only
against the Defendant No.2 but also against the Defendant No.1
who is admittedly a licensee and although possession is sought to
be recovered from Defendant No.1, injunction is sought against
both the parties as well as mesne profits are sought.