Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)
Sanjay Kumar vs Smt. Pushpa Devi on 6 January, 2016 cites

Madan Mohan And Another vs Krishan Kumar Sood on 12 January, 1993

is "amount due" is the arrears of rent, interest and the costs, as is so specified in the first proviso and clarified in Madan Mohan (supra), wherein the Court held that the purpose behind the Rent Controller, specifying in the of eviction order, the exact amount of rent payable by the tenant is to directly link it with the third proviso so as to rt effectively enable the tenant to know with certainty the amount that he is liable to pay to save eviction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 39 - Y Dayal - Full Document

A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988

31. A Constitution Bench of the apex Court in A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak & another, (1988) 2 SCC 602 has reiterated the principle by holding that an act of the Court shall prejudice no man as the maxim "Actus curiae neminem gravabit" is founded upon justice and good sense and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law. It further held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 153 - Cited by 1309 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Jogdhayan vs Babu Ram And Others on 23 November, 1982

deposit of only a relatively small fraction of the purchase money due to inadvertent mistake whether or not caused by any action of the Court, the Court has the discretion under S. 148, C.P.C. to extend the time even though the time fixed has already expired provided it is satisfied that the mistake is bona fide and was not indicative of negligence or inaction as was the case in Jogdhayan vs. Babu Ram [(1983) 1 SCC 26].
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 20 - B Islam - Full Document
1   2 Next