Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 27 October, 1998
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sarla Ahuja v.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,"[(1998) 8 SCC 119]
observed that:
Deena Nath vs Pooran Lal on 11 July, 2001
21.The landlord is only required to show that the requirement of
the tenanted premises is a bonafide requirement and not
merely a whimsical or a fanciful desire by him. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the landmark case of "Deena Nath v.
Pooran Lal"[(2001) 5 SCC 705] observed that:-
K.S. Bhandari vs International Security Printers Pvt ... on 22 December, 2017
2025.05.27
19:10:08
+0530
RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 20/29
argued that interplay between Section 22 and 14 (1)(e) of
DRC Act has been considered by Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in judgment titled as K. S. Bhandari Vs. International
Security Printers Pvt. Ltd. and Frontier Sales Vs. Superior
Exim Pvt. Ltd., Jai Rani & Anr. Vs. Lala Joti Pershad Shiv
Mandir Trust & Ors., Shanti Devi Vs. Digambar Jain
Panchayat Samaj, Badi Panchayat Vaish Bise Aggarwal Vs.
Sunil Gupta, Badi Panchayat Vaish Bise Aggarwal Vs. Jai
Prakash Goel, Surendra Kaur & Anr. Vs. Anoop Singh
Charitable Trust, all decided on 22.12.2017, wherein the issue
of application of Section 22 of DRC Act on public charitable
Trust carrying on organized activities was referred to a Larger
Bench. It is an admitted position as of today that the aforesaid
referral is yet to be decided by a Larger Bench of Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi.
Birdhi Chand Jain Charitable Trust vs Kanhaiya Lal Sham Lal on 4 September, 1972
Per contra, petitioners have averred that petitioner Trust
is a private Trust created on 27.12.1984 and therefore Section
22 of DRC Act is inapplicable, the petitioners have relied on
the judgments titled National Distributor Company Vs. Sant
Lal Godha and Sons Charity Trust and Birdhi Chand Jain
Charitable Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Shyam Lal, both decided by
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 13.01.2012 and 04.09.1972
respectively.
Bhaskar Refractories And Stoneware ... vs Ishwar Industries Ltd. on 2 June, 2023
On a combined reading of Bhaskar Refactories (supra)
and Satnam Kaur (supra), the net effect that manifests is that
pendency of an issue before a Larger Bench cannot bar a
party to obtain relief under the prevalent law. Further, on
drawing an analogy it is also clear that the legal entities
mentioned in U/s 22 are not precluded from preferring a
petition U/s 14 (1)(e) even when Section 22 of DRC may
apply.
Ravinder Kumar Verma vs Laxmi Narayan Mandir Nirman Sabha & Anr on 3 November, 2016
In this regard, it
would be relevant to refer to the decision of
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Ravinder Kumar Verma Vs. Laxmi Narayan
Mandir Nirman Sabha & Anr., 2016 SCC
OnLine 6024. The relevant extract of the
said judgment reads as under:-
Satnam Kaur & Ors. vs M/S. Ashlar Stores P. Ltd. on 19 March, 2009
On a combined reading of Bhaskar Refactories (supra)
and Satnam Kaur (supra), the net effect that manifests is that
pendency of an issue before a Larger Bench cannot bar a
party to obtain relief under the prevalent law. Further, on
drawing an analogy it is also clear that the legal entities
mentioned in U/s 22 are not precluded from preferring a
petition U/s 14 (1)(e) even when Section 22 of DRC may
apply.