Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.11 seconds)

Singer India Ltd. vs Amita Gupta on 29 September, 2000

Inthecaseof Singer India Ltd.. Vs. Amita Gupta, 2000 VII AD ( Delhi) 1076 itwas heldthatwherethelease deed isunregistered, it isnotonlyunregistered, itcan notbe saidthatitwas fora periodof9 yearsor 18 yearsinviewof Section 107 Transfer ofProperty Actand has to be treated as leasefrommonth to month.Even othersie the 10 mandateofSection 107 TransferofProperty Actwouldnotcome into playsimplybecause enhancedrentwas sentand acceptedafterthe initial expiry oftheleaseinas much as Section53A oftheTransfer of Property Actcan notbe construed ina manner whichwouldnegatethe provisions ofSection107 Transfer ofProperty Act.When a legislature has intended a particular acttobe done ina particular manner,ithas to be done inthatmanner ornotatall.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 23 - A Kumar - Full Document

Union Bank Of India vs Sushila Goela And Ors. on 7 November, 2005

36 In the case of Union Bank of India...Vs... Sushila Goela & others, 125 (2005) Delhi Law Times, 161 itwas heldthat where the tenancyhas expiredby efflux oftimeeven no noticeisnecessaryand wherethedefendant has notdisputed receipt ofnotice and has admitted documentsduringadmission/denial, judgmentcanbe passedunderOrder 12 Rule 6 CPC whichbecome applicable and thereisno questionof holding over.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 19 - M Katju - Full Document
1