Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.26 seconds)Section 102 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
In Shiv Samp Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta
[(1999) 6 SCC 222] in the context of Section Section 25B (8) of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Apex Court held that the failure of
the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case,
positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the
court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary
and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretence
or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to
persuade the court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the
landlord.
Section 103 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Shalimar Chemicals Works Ltd vs Surendra Oil & Dal ... on 27 August, 2010
In Shalimar Chemical Works Limited v. Surendra
Oil and Dal Mills [(2010) in the context of Section 31 of Trade
and Merchandise Mark Act, 1958 the Apex Court held that the trial
court should not have marked as exhibits the xerox copies of the
certificates of registration on trade marks in face of objection
raised by the defendants. It should have declined to take them on
record as evidence and left the plaintiff to support its case by
whatever needs it proposed rather than leaving the issue of
admissibility of those copies open and hanging, by marking them
as exhibits subject to objection of proof and admissibility.
Smt. Dayamathi Bai vs Sri K.M. Shaffi on 4 August, 2004
In the aspect of evidentiary value of documents
marked subject to objection, the learned counsel for the tenant
placed reliance on R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu
Viswesaraswami and V.P.Temple and another [(2003) 8
SCC 752 : AIR 2003 SC 4548], Smt. Dayamathi Bai v.
Sri.K.M.Shaffi [(2004) 7 SCC 107 : AIR 2004 SC 4082],
L.I.C. of India and another v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen [(2010)
4 SCC 491], Shalimar Chemical Works Limited v. Surendra
R.C.R.No.164 of 2020
15
Oil and Dal Mills [(2010) 8 SCC 423]
L.I.C. Of India & Anr vs Ram Pal Singh Bisen on 16 March, 2010
In the aspect of evidentiary value of documents
marked subject to objection, the learned counsel for the tenant
placed reliance on R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu
Viswesaraswami and V.P.Temple and another [(2003) 8
SCC 752 : AIR 2003 SC 4548], Smt. Dayamathi Bai v.
Sri.K.M.Shaffi [(2004) 7 SCC 107 : AIR 2004 SC 4082],
L.I.C. of India and another v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen [(2010)
4 SCC 491], Shalimar Chemical Works Limited v. Surendra
R.C.R.No.164 of 2020
15
Oil and Dal Mills [(2010) 8 SCC 423]
Adil Jamshed Frenchman (D) By Lrs vs Sardar Dastur Schools Trust & Ors on 14 February, 2005
In Adil Jamshad (dead) by LRs v. Sardar Dastur
Schools Trust and others [(2005 (2) SCC 476] the Apex
Court reiterated principles laid down in Shiv Samp Gupta
referred to supra. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel
for the landlady that the burden to prove that PW2 is employed
permanently is upon the tenant can not be sustained in law.
Secretary To Government Of India, ... vs Indira Devi And Anr. on 13 March, 2003
33. The learned counsel for the landlady placed reliance on
the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Secretary to Govt. of India, Minisry of Defence,
R.C.R.No.164 of 2020
25
New Delhi v. Indira Devi [AIR 2003 AP 329] on the aspect of
burden of proof. In that case, the plaintiff's case was that their
predecessor is the owner and pattadar of certain agricultural land
which was leased out to one particular person and ownership
continues with them. They claimed a declaration and injunction.
While so, defendant sets up a plea that the suit land forms part of
General Land Register Sy.No.586. It was in the said circumstances
that it was held in paragraph 20 of the said decision that the
burden of proof lies on the person asserts the affirmative of the
issue. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the
defendants that the burden of proving the fact that the suit
scheduled land does not form part of GLR Sy.No.586 lies on the
plaintiffs. The factual matrix in the above decision has no
application in the case in hand.