Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
Shrichand S/O Rochaldas Khemani vs Abdul Razzak S/O Abdul Ajim on 26 August, 2011 cites

Amarjit Singh vs Smt. Khatoon Quamarain on 18 November, 1986

The contention that premises of Dr. Kamble were vacated and were available to landlord to occupy and hence non-occupation thereof militates that his bona fide need is noted in paragraph no. 5. Absence of pleadings for supporting sale of premises vacated by tenants and not starting business of his sons therein, is also then noted and argument that in absence of plea such explanation could not have been accepted, is also noted. The contention that son -Mohammed Afzal had, at the time of sale of those premises, not completed his education was not pleaded or was not proved, is also noted with further arguments that it could not have been accepted as justification for not occupying those premises vacated by the tenant Dr. Kamble. Reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Amarjit Singh vs. Smt. Khatoon is also noted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 81 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Poonam vs Sumit Tanwar on 22 March, 2010

15. Not pointing out material available on record to a Court considering the question under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India by petitioner cannot be a valid ground to sustain such proceedings. Arguments about "no prejudice" or "no opportunity", observance of this Court in paragraph 13 of its judgment, are equally misconceived. These are the findings of this Court after due appreciation. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in Poonam vs. Sumit Tanwar (supra) considered the question of scope of interference under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and a proceedings before it were for awarding decree for divorce by annulling marriage of parties by waiving statutory period of six ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:40:46 ::: 12 months provided under section 13-B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. The observations in paragraph 22 show that when petitioner's counsel was not able to raise any factual or legal challenge, the Court cannot allow petition on such challenge as other side does not get fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted. The observance, therefore, are about petitioner;s counsel failing to make a factual or legal issue. The Hon'ble Apex Court has thus refused to alter the position prevailing to the prejudice of respondent before it. Here, the material against parties has come on record before the trial Court. Both the parties had opportunity to bring it on record and to assist the trial Court in its appreciation. The finding of trial Court in this respect has then been looked into by the first Appellate Court in the light of arguments advanced by respective counsel. That Appellate Court has found no substance in contention of present applicant and,therefore, has dismissed their Appeal. Thus, whatever material is available against the tenant on record is looked into by two courts. That material was within knowledge of petitioners when he argued his Writ Petition before this Court. The petitioners, therefore, cannot contend that use of that material by this Court is not proper. On the contrary, in view of concurrent adverse judgments, it was their duty to point out to this Court all material available on record against them and to explain it if they wanted a finding in their favour. The petitioners failure to point out that material to this Court cannot be capitalized upon by throwing that burden on the respondent-landlord. If this line of argument is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:40:46 ::: 13 accepted, it will mean that all such petitions where respondents fail to appear, must automatically be decreed/ allowed by this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 53 - Full Document
1