Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.32 seconds)
Smt. L J Malathi vs Smt. Mamatha on 3 April, 2013 cites

Board Of Control For Cricket, India & Anr vs Netaji Cricket Club & Ors on 10 January, 2005

AIR 2005 SC 592 - Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs Netaji Cricket Club 4 AIR 2001 SC 2316 - K Rajmouli Vs A V K N Swamy 2012(1) Civil L J 455 SC - Bakshi Dev Raj& Anr Vs Sudheer Kumar 2012(2) Civil LJ 35 - Mohammed Shafi Vs Abdul Wahid (dead) through LRs & Ors 2013 (1) Civil LJ 102 - Jotindar Kumar Singh @ Premjee &Anr Vs Sheojee Singh & Ors Per contra, counsel for the respondent submitted, review petitioner is a cantankerous lady and she is repeatedly harassing the respondent by filing frivolous complaints alleging sexual assault and atrocity, etc. The respondent is also a lady. To avoid respondent taking possession of the premises hectic efforts are made to file baseless complaints on false allegations. Further, due to non-payment of electricity charges BESCOM have removed the electricity connection. It is due to the act of the review petitioner herself in not making payment of electricity bills as well as she is a chronic defaulter in not making payment of rents and there is arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.76,000/-. The respondent is a subsequent purchaser. Even this Court in RFA has shown maximum leniency in giving 1 ½ years time to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises. The trial court 5 having got jurisdiction having regard to the plinth area, as the suit was maintainable, on service of notice as contemplated under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, held that there is valid termination of tenancy and passed an order of eviction by granting three months time. The review petitioner enjoyed time of more than two years from the date of order passed by this Court in RFA and she is dodging and resisting to vacate the premises on one or the other ground and the grounds made out by her are baseless and the review petitioner is also threatening and making all allegations to avoid the respondent from taking possession and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the review petition as being devoid of merits, also contending that the review petition itself is not maintainable and to allow the respondent to take possession of the premises as already execution petition is filed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 381 - S B Sinha - Full Document

K. Rajamouli vs A.V.K.N. Swamy on 3 May, 2001

AIR 2005 SC 592 - Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs Netaji Cricket Club 4 AIR 2001 SC 2316 - K Rajmouli Vs A V K N Swamy 2012(1) Civil L J 455 SC - Bakshi Dev Raj& Anr Vs Sudheer Kumar 2012(2) Civil LJ 35 - Mohammed Shafi Vs Abdul Wahid (dead) through LRs & Ors 2013 (1) Civil LJ 102 - Jotindar Kumar Singh @ Premjee &Anr Vs Sheojee Singh & Ors Per contra, counsel for the respondent submitted, review petitioner is a cantankerous lady and she is repeatedly harassing the respondent by filing frivolous complaints alleging sexual assault and atrocity, etc. The respondent is also a lady. To avoid respondent taking possession of the premises hectic efforts are made to file baseless complaints on false allegations. Further, due to non-payment of electricity charges BESCOM have removed the electricity connection. It is due to the act of the review petitioner herself in not making payment of electricity bills as well as she is a chronic defaulter in not making payment of rents and there is arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.76,000/-. The respondent is a subsequent purchaser. Even this Court in RFA has shown maximum leniency in giving 1 ½ years time to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises. The trial court 5 having got jurisdiction having regard to the plinth area, as the suit was maintainable, on service of notice as contemplated under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, held that there is valid termination of tenancy and passed an order of eviction by granting three months time. The review petitioner enjoyed time of more than two years from the date of order passed by this Court in RFA and she is dodging and resisting to vacate the premises on one or the other ground and the grounds made out by her are baseless and the review petitioner is also threatening and making all allegations to avoid the respondent from taking possession and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the review petition as being devoid of merits, also contending that the review petition itself is not maintainable and to allow the respondent to take possession of the premises as already execution petition is filed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 85 - S N Phukan - Full Document

Bakshi Dev Raj & Anr vs Sudheer Kumar on 4 August, 2011

AIR 2005 SC 592 - Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs Netaji Cricket Club 4 AIR 2001 SC 2316 - K Rajmouli Vs A V K N Swamy 2012(1) Civil L J 455 SC - Bakshi Dev Raj& Anr Vs Sudheer Kumar 2012(2) Civil LJ 35 - Mohammed Shafi Vs Abdul Wahid (dead) through LRs & Ors 2013 (1) Civil LJ 102 - Jotindar Kumar Singh @ Premjee &Anr Vs Sheojee Singh & Ors Per contra, counsel for the respondent submitted, review petitioner is a cantankerous lady and she is repeatedly harassing the respondent by filing frivolous complaints alleging sexual assault and atrocity, etc. The respondent is also a lady. To avoid respondent taking possession of the premises hectic efforts are made to file baseless complaints on false allegations. Further, due to non-payment of electricity charges BESCOM have removed the electricity connection. It is due to the act of the review petitioner herself in not making payment of electricity bills as well as she is a chronic defaulter in not making payment of rents and there is arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.76,000/-. The respondent is a subsequent purchaser. Even this Court in RFA has shown maximum leniency in giving 1 ½ years time to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises. The trial court 5 having got jurisdiction having regard to the plinth area, as the suit was maintainable, on service of notice as contemplated under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, held that there is valid termination of tenancy and passed an order of eviction by granting three months time. The review petitioner enjoyed time of more than two years from the date of order passed by this Court in RFA and she is dodging and resisting to vacate the premises on one or the other ground and the grounds made out by her are baseless and the review petitioner is also threatening and making all allegations to avoid the respondent from taking possession and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the review petition as being devoid of merits, also contending that the review petition itself is not maintainable and to allow the respondent to take possession of the premises as already execution petition is filed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 36 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1