Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)
M/S Kirloskar Brothers Limited vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 24 February, 2012 cites

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd vs Employees' State Insurance Corpn on 24 January, 1996

In the application it was District Judge/PHC/ND 24/2/2012 Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. LIC Page No. 3 of 13 4 prayed that the appellant be directed to pay damages @ 255 per sq ft per month from 1/5/2010 onwards with interest, till the actual delivery of possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent. 3 Vide the impugned order the appellant was ordered to be evicted. It was also directed to pay the damages. 4 In respect of the order passed u/s 5 of the Act, an appeal which bears no. 42/11, was filed. The appeal bearing no. 43/11 is against the order vide which the appellant had been directed to pay the damages.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 43 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao And Anr vs State Of A.P on 15 October, 2003

12 In Parsa Raja Vs. State 2003 IX AD (SC) 31 it was held as under:­ "a close similarity between one case and another is not enough to warrant like treatment because a significant deal may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases one should avoid temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the color of one case with the color of another".
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 44 - A Pasayat - Full Document

New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Nusli Neville Wadia And Another on 13 December, 2007

17 So far as the argument that the respondent are bound to follow the guidelines is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Vs. Nusli.N. Wadia (2008) 3 SCC 279 had observed that "issuance of guidelines is not being controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the tenant." 18 So far as the offer of the appellant to pay charges @ Rs. 100/­ per sq. ft per month is concerned, it is for the respondent to decide. No direction in this regard can be given to the respondent. 19 From the facts of this case it can't be said that the act of the respondent is either arbitrary or whimsical or unfair or unreasonable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 374 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next