Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.67 seconds)M/S. Rahabhar Production Pvt. Ltd vs Rajendra K. Tandon on 26 March, 1998
(See also Rahabhar
Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra K. Tandon AIR 1998 SC 1639;
and Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507).
Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 30 July, 1999
(See also Rahabhar
Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra K. Tandon AIR 1998 SC 1639;
and Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507).
Malpe Vishwanath Acharya & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 19 December, 1997
In Malpe Vishwanath Acharya & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. AIR 1998 SC 602, this Court emphasised the need
for social legislations like the Rent Control Act striking a
balance between rival interests so as to be just to law. "The law
ought not to be unjust to one and give a disproportionate benefit
or protection to another section of the society."
Siddalingamma And Anr vs Mamtha Shenoy on 18 October, 2001
In Siddalingamma & Anr. Vs. Mamtha Shenoy AIR 2001 SC 2896,
this Court held that while determining the case of eviction of the
tenant, an approach either too liberal or too conservative or
pedantic must be guarded against. If the landlord wishes to live
with comfort in a house of his own, the law does not command or
compel him to squeeze himself and dwell in lesser premises so as
to protect the tenant's continued occupation in tenancy premises.
However, the bona fide requirement of the landlord must be
distinguished from a mere whim or fanciful desire. It must be
manifested in actual need so as to convince the Court that it is
not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. The need should be bona
fide and not arbitrary and the requirement pleaded and proved must
neither be a pretext nor a ruse adopted by the landlord for
evicting the tenant. Therefore, the Court must take relevant
circumstances into consideration while determining the issue of
bona fide need so that the protection afforded to a tenant is not
rendered illusory or whittled down.
Ram Prasad Rajak vs Nand Kumar & Bors. & Anr on 18 August, 1998
In Ram Prasad Rajak Vs. Nand Kumar & Bros. & Anr., AIR 1998
SC 2730, this Court held that existence of substantial question of
law is a sine-qua-non for the exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 100 of the Code and entering into the question as to
whether need of the landlord was bonafide or not, was beyond the
jurisdiction of the High Court as the issue can be decided only by
appreciating the evidence on record.
Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao vs E.V. Alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil And ... on 19 November, 1993
(Vide Salmond, on Jurisprudence, 12th Edn. page 69, cited in
Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao Vs. E.V. alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil
& ors., AIR 1994 SC 678).
Reserve Bank Of India And Anr. vs Ramkrishna Govind Morey on 20 January, 1976
In Reserve Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Ramakrishna Govind
Morey, AIR 1976 SC 830, this Court held that whether trial Court
should not have exercised its jurisdiction differently, is not a
question of law or a substantial question of law and, therefore,
second appeal cannot be entertained by the High Court on this
ground.
Kulwant Kaur & Ors vs Gurdial Singh Mann (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 21 March, 2001
In Kulwant Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdial Singh Mann (dead) by
L.Rs. & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 1273, this Court held that the question
whether Lower Court's finding is perverse may come within the
ambit of substantial question of law. However, there must be a
clear finding in the judgment of the High Court as to perversity
in order to show compliance with provisions of Section 100 CPC.
Thus, this Court rejected the proposition that scrutiny of
evidence is totally prohibited in Second Appeal.
Sheel Chand vs Prakash Chand on 1 September, 1998
In Sheel Chand Vs. Prakash Chand, AIR 1998 SC 3063, this
Court held that question of re-appreciation of evidence and
framing the substantial question as to whether the findings
relating to factual matrix by the court below could vitiate due to
irrelevant consideration and not under law, being question of fact
cannot be framed.