Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
Inderjit & Anr vs Kamal Kishore on 16 January, 2017 cites

Anderson Wright And Co. vs Amar Nath Roy And Ors. on 19 April, 2005

Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., 2005 (1) SCC 705. The view was followed in 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2017 17:41:03 ::: CR-3106-2016 (O&M) -2- Anderson Wright and Co. vs. Amar Nath Roy, 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 831 and by a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra and another vs. M/s. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2009 (9) SCC 772. It was further held that the amount of mesne profits should not be excessive, fanciful or a punitive amount. The relevant observations read thus:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 84 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Satish Chand Makhan And Others vs Govardhan Das Byas And Others on 27 October, 1998

Insofar as the objection of Shri M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2017 17:41:04 ::: CR-3106-2016 (O&M) -4- as regards the inadmissibility of documents on account of the lease deed being inadmissible for want of registration, it is appropriate to note that there is no dispute to the said proposition that an un-registered lease deed signed by the lesser and lessee is inadmissible in evidence, as has been held in several decisions, c.f. Satish Chand Makhan v. Govardhan Das Byas , Bajaj Auto Limited v. Behari Lal Kohli A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1606 and Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop and Sons and Ors. (2006) 6 S.C.C. 394. It has already been held that the provisional assessment is to be made on the basis of cogent and credible evidence which would necessarily mean that inadmissible evidence like unregistered lease deeds which are required to be registered compulsorily in terms of Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 are not taken into account."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 74 - Full Document

Bajaj Auto Limited vs Behari Lal Kohli on 8 August, 1989

Insofar as the objection of Shri M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2017 17:41:04 ::: CR-3106-2016 (O&M) -4- as regards the inadmissibility of documents on account of the lease deed being inadmissible for want of registration, it is appropriate to note that there is no dispute to the said proposition that an un-registered lease deed signed by the lesser and lessee is inadmissible in evidence, as has been held in several decisions, c.f. Satish Chand Makhan v. Govardhan Das Byas , Bajaj Auto Limited v. Behari Lal Kohli A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1606 and Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop and Sons and Ors. (2006) 6 S.C.C. 394. It has already been held that the provisional assessment is to be made on the basis of cogent and credible evidence which would necessarily mean that inadmissible evidence like unregistered lease deeds which are required to be registered compulsorily in terms of Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 are not taken into account."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 91 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Mohammad Ahmad & Anr vs Atma Ram Chauhan & Ors on 13 May, 2011

The Apex Court thereafter in Mohammad Ahmad and another vs. Atma Ram Chauhan and others, 2011 (7) SCC 755 laid down the principle that the market rent shall be worked out on the basis of valuation reports or reliable estimate of building rentals in the surrounding areas let out on the rent recently. The rent which was to be fixed should be proper and adequate keeping in mind the location, type of construction, accessibility to the main road, parking space facilities and it should not end up being a bonanza for the landlord. The principles laid down read thus:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 147 - D Verma - Full Document
1