Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.18 seconds)
Mohammed Indris Mian vs Doman Sah on 23 August, 1977 cites

Hakim Ziaul Islam vs Mohd. Rafi on 15 December, 1970

In the case of Hakim Ziaul Islam v. Mohd. Rafi (AIR 1971 All 302) a learned single Judge declared a notice under Section 106 to be invalid because the landlord had determined the tenancy in question with effect from the date of notice and had asked the tenant to deliver possession within a month from the date of receipt of the notice. It was held that as the tenancy was purported to be terminated on the date of notice, it was invalid under Section 106 of the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Farooq Ahmad vs Muneshwar Bux Singh on 29 April, 1971

Learned counsel has also referred to another decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Farooq Ahmad v. Muneshwar Bux Singh (AIR 1972 All 155) where a learned single Judge held a notice to be invalid in which the landlord had called upon the tenant to deliver possession on a particular date after receipt of the notice holding that the tenancy had not been terminated. Apparently, these cases help the contention raised on behalf of the appellant, but I shall immediately indicate that on proper consideration it cannot be accepted.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Indu Bhusan Bose Choudhary vs Hari Bhajan Singh And Ors. on 19 November, 1975

In support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Indu Bhusan Bose Choudhry v. Hari Bhajan Singh (1976 BBCJ (HC) 141) : (AIR 1976 Pat 282); Arun Chandra v. Panchu Modok (AIR 1957 Assam 70) and Vagha Jesing v. Manilal Bhogilal (AIR 1935 Bom 262). In my view, this point cannot be urged for the first time before this Court. No such objection was taken in the written statement. No issue was framed on the question as to whether the suit by the plaintiff in absence of his other co-sharers was maintainable or not. The plaintiff has asserted in the plaint that he was the karta of the family. If that statement would have been challenged in the written statement, perhaps, the court below would have gone into that issue. In such a situation I am not inclined to entertain this objection at this stage.
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Vagha Jesing vs Manilal Bhogilal Desai on 20 November, 1934

In support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Indu Bhusan Bose Choudhry v. Hari Bhajan Singh (1976 BBCJ (HC) 141) : (AIR 1976 Pat 282); Arun Chandra v. Panchu Modok (AIR 1957 Assam 70) and Vagha Jesing v. Manilal Bhogilal (AIR 1935 Bom 262). In my view, this point cannot be urged for the first time before this Court. No such objection was taken in the written statement. No issue was framed on the question as to whether the suit by the plaintiff in absence of his other co-sharers was maintainable or not. The plaintiff has asserted in the plaint that he was the karta of the family. If that statement would have been challenged in the written statement, perhaps, the court below would have gone into that issue. In such a situation I am not inclined to entertain this objection at this stage.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 Next