Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.42 seconds)
Smt. Sharda Devi Goyal & Anr. vs . M/S Rameshwar Dass & Ors. on 27 August, 2011 cites

Sri Ramakrishna Theatres Ltd. vs General Investments And Commercial ... on 27 March, 1992

section (1) of Sec. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Act limits the grounds on which a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant. Nothing has been indicated by reasons of which it can be concluded that a contract of tenancy loses significance on coming into force of the Karnataka Rent Act. The effect of the non obstante clause, in our view has been rightly explained in the Full Bench decision in the cases of Sri Ramakrishna Theatres Ltd. v. General Investments and Commercial Corpn. Ltd. In one of the decisions of this Court reported in Modern Hotel v. K. Radhakrishnaiah it has been held that period of a subsisting lease for fixed term could not be curtailed in the absence of a forfeiture clause in the lease.
Karnataka High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar And Anr vs Smt. Rudravva And Others on 27 August, 2001

18. On the other hand respondent has relied upon the judgment reported in (2001) 7 SCC 409, Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Revision no. 126/2011 dated 09/05/2011 in case titled as Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar and Anr. v. Rudravva (Smt.) and Ors., order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in RCR no. 120/2011 dated 11/07/2011 in case titled as Vijay Nayyar vs. Om Prakash Malik, order passed in RCR no. 18/2010 dated 12/07/2011 in case titled as jatinder Singh Nanra vs. Sarita Rani, order passed in CM (M) no. 1164/2009 dated 23/10/2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Nitin Garg vs. Naresh Kumar and (2001) 1 SCC 255.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 22 - B Kumar - Full Document

Modern Hotel, Gudur Represented Bym.N. ... vs K. Radhakrishnaiah & Ors on 26 April, 1989

section (1) of Sec. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Act limits the grounds on which a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant. Nothing has been indicated by reasons of which it can be concluded that a contract of tenancy loses significance on coming into force of the Karnataka Rent Act. The effect of the non obstante clause, in our view has been rightly explained in the Full Bench decision in the cases of Sri Ramakrishna Theatres Ltd. v. General Investments and Commercial Corpn. Ltd. In one of the decisions of this Court reported in Modern Hotel v. K. Radhakrishnaiah it has been held that period of a subsisting lease for fixed term could not be curtailed in the absence of a forfeiture clause in the lease.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 67 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Vijay Nayyar vs Om Prakash Malik on 11 July, 2011

18. On the other hand respondent has relied upon the judgment reported in (2001) 7 SCC 409, Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Revision no. 126/2011 dated 09/05/2011 in case titled as Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar and Anr. v. Rudravva (Smt.) and Ors., order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in RCR no. 120/2011 dated 11/07/2011 in case titled as Vijay Nayyar vs. Om Prakash Malik, order passed in RCR no. 18/2010 dated 12/07/2011 in case titled as jatinder Singh Nanra vs. Sarita Rani, order passed in CM (M) no. 1164/2009 dated 23/10/2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Nitin Garg vs. Naresh Kumar and (2001) 1 SCC 255.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 64 - P K Bhasin - Full Document
1   2 Next