Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.44 seconds)
Satish Kumar vs . Bhushan Lal on 24 December, 2018 cites

Satish Kumar Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh 8 Wps/4254/2018 ... on 2 July, 2018

60. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that such a need of petitioner and his two sons had not been disputed by the respondent in his written statement, which is apparent from the fact that respondent had not disputed the averments made in RC ARC No. 4475/16 Satish Kumar Vs. Bhushan Lal Judgment dated 24.12.2018 Page 38 of 59 para no. 4 and 18(ii) to (vii) of the petition.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors vs Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors on 26 August, 1987

57. No doubt, petitioner has failed to produce any title documents in respect of tenanted premises in his favour during his evidence, however, in my considered opinion, non­availability of such documents has been duly explained by the petitioner on the ground that the same is an ancestral property of his forefathers and hence no document is there in the name of petitioner in respect of the tenanted premises. Even otherwise, the meaning of term 'owner' U/s 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, vis­a­vis the tenant has been held to be that the owner should be something more than the tenant. While taking RC ARC No. 4475/16 Satish Kumar Vs. Bhushan Lal Judgment dated 24.12.2018 Page 34 of 59 the aforesaid view, I draw support from the following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment titled as Shanti Sharma Vs. Ved Prabha (1987)4 SCC 193:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 577 - G L Oza - Full Document

Bhagwati Prasad vs Shri Chandramaul on 19 October, 1965

Thereafter, observations made by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Shri Chandramaul AIR 1966 SC 735 to the effect ­that if a plea is not specifically made and yet is covered by an issue by implication and the parties knew that the said plea was RC ARC No. 4475/16 Satish Kumar Vs. Bhushan Lal Judgment dated 24.12.2018 Page 52 of 59 involved in the trial, then merely because plea was not expressly taken in pleadings would not necessarily dis­entitle a party from relying upon it if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence­ were quoted with approval.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 277 - Full Document
1   2 Next