Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 67 (0.38 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887
Prakash H. Jain vs Ms. Marie Fernandes on 23 September, 2003
This Court held that Prakash H. Jain supra could not be
read as overruling the dicta of the Division Bench of this Court and
following the dicta of the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Quresh
supra, the landlord‟s petition was dismissed. The landlord appealed to the
Supreme Court which framed the issues for adjudication as under:-
Om Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 2010
in Ravi Nath Sharma
Vs. Jagdish Prasad Sharma & Ors. MANU/DE/7916/2017, holding that
Ganpat Ram Sharma supra is the sole judgment holding the Limitation Act to
apply to Rent Controller; else the consistent view of the Supreme Court has
been that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the Rent
RC.REV. 279/2014 Page 13 of 29
Controller; (xxiv) reference is also made to Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119 and Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Mahesh
Chand Gupta (Dr) (1999) 6 SCC 222 holding that though the word revision is
not employed in proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Act, from the language used
therein it is evident that the power conferred is revisional power and which is
different from the appellate power; that Section 25B is a self-contained
provision; (xxv) reliance is placed on Commissioner of Customs and Central
Excise Vs. Hongo India Private Ltd. 2009 (5) SCC 791 holding that in the
absence of any provision in Section 35 (H) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for
condonation of delay in filing the reference application, the High Court did not
have any inherent or plenary power to condone the delay; (xxvi) reference is
made to Om Prakash Vs. Ashwani Kumar Bassi 2010 (9) SCC 183 holding
that the Rent Controller under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,
1949 being a creature of a statute can only act in terms of the powers vested in
it by a statute and cannot entertain an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay in applying for leave to contest; (xxvii)
reference is made to South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit
Society Employees Union Vs. B. Yashodabai 2015 (2) SCC 727 to contend
that once the Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh supra has pronounced on the
issue the matter does not require reconsideration by any other Court; reference
in this regard is also made to Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan 2002
(2) SCC 420 holding that it is impermissible for the High Court to overrule the
decision of the Supreme Court on the ground that the Supreme Court did not
consider the point canvassed before the High Court; reference in this context is
also made to Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2012 SCC
RC.REV. 279/2014 Page 14 of 29
OnLine Del 2684 (DB) and Indian Airlines Vs. Union of India 2006 (128)
DLT 505 (DB) to the same effect; and, (xxviii) reliance is placed on Sanjay
Mehra Vs. Sunil Malhotra 2010 (170) DLT 797 holding that the Rent
Controller is required to confine the examination to the application for leave to
defend and relying thereon it is contended that in the absence of leave to
defend, nothing is to be considered by the Controller.