Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.36 seconds)
Jagdish Chand Kashyap vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 September, 2015 cites

Vannattankandy Ibrayi vs Kunhabdulla Hajee on 13 December, 2000

23. The next decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is in the case of Vannattankandy Ibrayi vs. Kunhabdulla Hajee7. In that case, the question was whether in a case where the tenanted shop got completely destroyed by natural calamities and in its place, new constructions were made by the tenant himself, would the old tenancy continue. The Supreme Court held that such plea is not acceptable as after destruction of the existing shop, tenancy comes to an end automatically. It was observed as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 69 - Full Document

Gopal Dass vs Bal Kishan Dass on 31 May, 2011

14. The aforesaid proposition of law was also not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Rather, he himself cited the decision in the case of Gopal Dass (supra) in submitting that the new structure should have been constructed after complete demolition of the existing structure. In other words, it was urged that where the old structure was not completely demolished as in the instant case, it would be treated to be an old construction and would not be exempt from the provisions of the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - R Kumar - Full Document

Smt. Padma Tandon vs District Judge And Ors. on 9 September, 2004

24. The other two decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are in the case of Ajit Kumar Tandon vs. District Judge8 and Surendra Nath Rai vs. Arjun Kukreja9. In both these cases, the Court found that as a result of alteration and modification, the new structure stood exempted from the provisions of the Act. Thus, they are also of no help to the petitioner.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document
1