Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Rakesh Kumar & Shri Shakti Kumar vs Hindustan Everest Tool Ltd on 7 March, 1988
(i) Rakesh Kumar and another Vs. Hindustan Everest Tool
Ltd., AIR 1988 SC 976 to contend that notice has to be
read in appropriate logical way. The notice must be read in
common sense point of view bearing in mind how such
notices are understood by ordinary people.
Mahalinga Bandappa vs Venkatesh Waman on 9 October, 1956
(i) Mahalinga Bandappa Vs. Venkatesh Waman, AIR 1957 Bom
201;
Section 13 in The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Kantilal Ravji Mehta And Anr. vs Sayarabai Chhaganlal Kering on 5 July, 2002
(ii) Kantilal Ravji Mehta and another Vs. Sayarabai
Chhaganlal Kering, 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 52, and in particular
paragraph-6 thereof, to contend that the demand notice
must be construed not with a desire to find faults in it, which
would render it defective, but it must be construed "resmagis
valeat quam pereat."
Alisaheb Abdul Latif Mulla vs Abdul Karim Abdul Rahman Mulla And Ors. on 26 September, 1980
19. Applying the principles laid down in Malvankar, J. to the
facts of the present case, I am satisfied that the Courts below were
justified in passing eviction decree under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b)
of the Act.
1