Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.11 seconds)
Bundu vs Smt. Hashmat on 25 January, 1972 cites

Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Ors vs Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy on 26 February, 1970

8. On behalf of the plaintiff it was contended that the ground taken in the application dated 16-2-70 namely that the defendant committed a default within the meaning of Section 13 (6) as he neither made the deposit nor filed an application for grant of time for making a deposit as contemplated under Section 13 (4) on the first date of hearing namely 31-7-68 raised a question of jurisdiction of the Court and therefore the principle of res iudi-cata was not applicable to it. Reliance was placed on Mathura Prasad v. Dossibai, AIR 1971 SC 2355.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 289 - J C Shah - Full Document

Lachoo Mal vs Radhey Shyam on 10 February, 1971

In this connection I may refer to the decision of the SUPreme Court in Lachoo Mal v. Radhev Shyam (1971) 1 SCC 619 = (AIR 1971 SC 2213). In that case the appellant, an old tenant of respondent, entered into an agreement with the latter that he will vacate the shop for one month to enable respondent to construct an upstair portion for his own use. but that he should resume possession of the shop after the period at the same old rent. He took back possession after the construction. But as respondent refused to take the rent, the appellant deposited the rent under Section 7-C of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The respondent served a notice to quit and later filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant and for arrears of rent. The suit was dismissed as the appellant was entitled to protection under Section 3 of the Act. It was reversed in first appeal and duly confirmed by the High Court in second appeal. The Supreme Court held-
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 100 - A N Grover - Full Document
1