Showing : 1261-1270 of 4208 Results

PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3)(a)(i)-- Eviction - Bona fide requirement - Conditions to be fulfilled - Held, (a) he is not occupying another residential building in urban area concerned and (b) has not vacated such building without sufficient cause in said urban area after commencement of the Act...........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3)(a)(i)-- Eviction - Bona fide requirement - Held, it depends upon facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be strait jacket formula for this purpose - Burden lies upon landlord to establish that accommodation is bona fide required by him for personal use - While adjudicating whether..........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3)(a)(i)-- Eviction - Bona fide requirement - Proof - Held, bona fide requirement of landlord depends upon facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be strait jacket formula for this purpose - Burden lies upon landlord to establish that accommodation is bona fide required by him for personal use..........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3)(a)(i)-- Eviction - Bonafide requirement - Proof - Landlord is carrying on business of shoe shop on left side adjoining to demised shop - Landlord wants to expand his business as at the time of letting out there was no bazar whereas now there has been great development in area - Parda wall was constructed..........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3)(a)(i)-- Eviction - Bona fide requirement - Non-specifying nature of business - Effect - Held, it is not sine qua non for landlord to specify nature of business for which premises are bona fide required by him - There being time lag between filing of petition and time when actual business would be started..........
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(e)-- Disproportionate assets - Burden of proof - Held, it is burden of prosecution to prove that person, accused of having been found in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, is proved beyond reasonable doubt to have been found in possession of property disproportionate..........
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(e)-- Disproportionate assets - Burden of proof - Accused alleged to have amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income - Assessment of valuation of immovable and movable properties of accused could not be proved - Held, prosecution failed to establish that accused had been found in..........
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)-- Illegal gratification - Complainant giving suggestions about the place where the search should be conducted - Possibility of complainant himself concealing the notes without knowledge of accused with the objective of getting the accused entrapped in the case is not ruled out in the case -..........
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)-- Illegal gratification - Appeal against acquittal - Acquittal upheld - Theory regarding demand of bribe found uncorroborated - No verification of demand was attempted by seizure officer - Amount was not recovered from personal search of accused - Numerous cases of defalcation pending against..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2013
Details
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d), 13(2), 2(c), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 21-- Public servant - Definition in S.21 IPC and S.2(c) of 1988 Act are different - Decisions rendered while interpreting S.21 of IPC which in substance and content are substantially different than S.2(c) have no bearing at all for decision of case for an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act...........

Showing : 1261-1270 of 4208 Results