Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.38 seconds)
V.Vairamani Ammal vs P.Kalyana Sundaram on 27 January, 2004 cites

M/S. Variety Emporium vs V. R. M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina on 27 November, 1984

10. The other judgments cited are respectively reported in 98-L.W.-25 (M/s.VARIETY EMPORIUM vs. V.R.M.MOHD.IBRAHIM NAINA) and (1981) 3 SCC 36 (M.M.QUASIM vs. MANOHAR LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS) wherein, according to the petitioner, the Honourable Apex Court has held that the subsequent events have to be taken note of. True, but the subsequent events alone are not meant here. On the contrary, along with the material evidence placed on record in proof of the claim of the petitioner, the subsequent events should also be taken note of, provided they are supporting the basic case put up by the petitioner on the date of petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 107 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

M.M. Quasim vs Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors on 7 April, 1981

10. The other judgments cited are respectively reported in 98-L.W.-25 (M/s.VARIETY EMPORIUM vs. V.R.M.MOHD.IBRAHIM NAINA) and (1981) 3 SCC 36 (M.M.QUASIM vs. MANOHAR LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS) wherein, according to the petitioner, the Honourable Apex Court has held that the subsequent events have to be taken note of. True, but the subsequent events alone are not meant here. On the contrary, along with the material evidence placed on record in proof of the claim of the petitioner, the subsequent events should also be taken note of, provided they are supporting the basic case put up by the petitioner on the date of petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 316 - D A Desai - Full Document

Saraswathi Alias Sasikala vs Syed Ibrahim on 9 September, 1992

11. The other judgments cited are reported in (1)1993-1-MLJ 321 ( SARASWATHI alias SASIKALA vs. SYED IRAHIM), (2) 1977-T.L.N.J. 499 ( MARI AMMAL vs. KANDASWAMY) and (3) 98-L.W.-666 (THIRU CHELLIAH PANDITHAN vs. TMT.ANTHONIAMMAL AND TWO OTHERS) in which, according to the petitioner, it is held that 'the requirement of the landlord having the capital ready and the intention to do business is bonafide though the activity relating to it has to await the securing of accommodation; that carrying on business does not mean that there is an active and business trade but it is enough if preparations have been made'. There is no second thought or any controversy that could be entertained in this proposition also, but the point that is relevant for consideration is 'whether such readiness and intention to do business in a bona fide manner are required on the date of filing of the petition requiring the premises or at a later point of time?' Needless to mention that only long after filing the petition, the petitioner got ready with such materials as though she was getting ready to do the business and not at the time of filing of the RCOP and therefore the lower Courts have every reason to reject not only Exs.A.6 to A.17 but also particularly Exs.A.11 and A.12 which are all the preparations long after the filing of the petition which cannot go to show that on the date of filing of the application, the petitioner has made such preparations or had the intention to do the business of that nature.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1