Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.66 seconds)The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
Section 15 in The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. [Entire Act]
Balaram vs Mangta Dass on 16 July, 1907
AIR 1916 Cal 77, in the case of Balaram v. Mangta Dass, (1930) 34 Cal WN 941: in the case of Lingo Raoji Kulkarni v. Secretary of State, AIR 1928 Bom 201; in the case of Sashi Kumar Banerjee v. Mrs. D. J. Hill, ; in the case of Tarini Charan Bhattacharya v. Kedar Nath Haldar.
Lingo Raoji Kulkarni vs Secretary Of State For India on 16 January, 1928
AIR 1916 Cal 77, in the case of Balaram v. Mangta Dass, (1930) 34 Cal WN 941: in the case of Lingo Raoji Kulkarni v. Secretary of State, AIR 1928 Bom 201; in the case of Sashi Kumar Banerjee v. Mrs. D. J. Hill, ; in the case of Tarini Charan Bhattacharya v. Kedar Nath Haldar.
Sashi Kumar Banerjee And Ors. vs Mrs. D.J. Hill And Ors. on 20 July, 1950
AIR 1916 Cal 77, in the case of Balaram v. Mangta Dass, (1930) 34 Cal WN 941: in the case of Lingo Raoji Kulkarni v. Secretary of State, AIR 1928 Bom 201; in the case of Sashi Kumar Banerjee v. Mrs. D. J. Hill, ; in the case of Tarini Charan Bhattacharya v. Kedar Nath Haldar.
Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee And Ors. vs Kedar Nath Haldar on 12 September, 1928
AIR 1916 Cal 77, in the case of Balaram v. Mangta Dass, (1930) 34 Cal WN 941: in the case of Lingo Raoji Kulkarni v. Secretary of State, AIR 1928 Bom 201; in the case of Sashi Kumar Banerjee v. Mrs. D. J. Hill, ; in the case of Tarini Charan Bhattacharya v. Kedar Nath Haldar.
Kanhaiya Singh And Ors. vs Bhagwat Singh And Ors. on 15 December, 1953
33 Cal WN 126 = (AIR 1928 Cal 777) (FB) and in the case of Kanhaiya Singh v. Bhagwat Singh, AIR 1954 Pat 326. It was contended on behalf of the landlord that unless a point had been raised and was necessary to be raised, there could not be any question of constructive res iudicata in a proceeding like this and furthermore, in a case where the case had been remanded on merits to be tried, there could not be any question of constructive res iudicata. It was further urged that the application was not maintainable by the provisions of the Act. it was not a question whether the party was entitled to raise a contention or not. The court was debarred from allowing an application if the law did not permit it to do
so. In the view I have taken it is not necessary for me to decide this contention. But I am inclined to take this opinion that when this contention could have been raised before the appeal court and this contention not having been raised, which would have defeated an order of remand, in my opinion the landlord is not entitled at this stage to raise this contention.