LawMirror.com

Results of shop+act

Andriod Application iphone Application

Showing : 331-340 of 807 Results

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Suit for possession -- Suit for possession and recovery of rent - Premises let out by grandfather of landlord - Landlord bequeathed premises after demise of grandfather - Demised premises/shop situated in area where no Notified Area Committee was in existence - Held, Rent Act not applicable - Concurrent findings of Court below, decreeing suit do not warrant any..........

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) -- Eviction petition on ground of personal use and occupation to start business - Shop part of residential building but used for non-residential purposes by tenant - Held, shop falls within definition of non-residential building for which landlord can seek eviction of tenant for non residential..........

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13B -- NRI landlord filed petition seeking eviction of tenant on ground of bonafide necessity - Tenant sought leave to contest on ground that landlord was joint owner of shop and he alone cannot seek his eviction - Held, when landlord is joint owner and has filed petition u/s 13-B of the Act, this raises a triable..........

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304 -- Deceased purchased liquor from the shop of accused and consumed the same in the shop itself - Death after consuming liquor - Accused acquitted as (i) no evidence that deceased purchased liquor from accused - The only evidence was that deceased was seen drinking liquor in the shop of accused; (ii) Liquor consumed by deceased not sent..........

DELHI HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(e) -- Eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement - Leave to defend - Demised premises consisting of one room in possession of tenant for 36 years and being used as a shop - Ever since the induction of tenant, family of landlord expanded enormously - Landlord and his wife, senior citizens, suffering from heart..........

DELHI HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(e), 25B(8) -- Bonafide requirement - Landlord chartered accountant by profession, sought eviction of tenant from shop on ground floor to set up his professional office - Tenant taking plea that landlord having alternative accommodation - Held, plea not tenable as other property available to landlord was purely residential whereas..........

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3)(a)(i) -- Eviction of demised shop sought on ground of personal necessity - Tenant took plea that landlord was having possession of alternative shop - Alleged shop, which is room, is on back side of demised premises and does not even abut on main road and thus, not suitable for landlord - Even tenant not doing any..........

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3)(a)(i) -- Bonafide requirement - Landlady required the premises to establish her widowed daughter and her grown up son in business to be set up in the demised shop - Landlady had no other similar building in the locality nor had she left any building without sufficient reason - Landlady has the only support of her..........

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d)(ii) -- Consumer - Medical service - Contention by OP I that medical services given by him were without any consideration and free of charge as such complainant cannot be regarded as consumers of the answering OP within meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of CP Act - Complaint claimed that at the time of admission of patient a sum..........

DELHI HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 420 -- Cheating - Framing of charge - Petitioner fraudulently and dishonestly took Rs.12, 90, 000/- from complainant on a false assurance of arranging a shop for her - Allegations supported by two witnesses to the transaction - It cannot be said that there was no payment of money - Petitioner, after money, locked his shop and disappeared..........

Showing : 331-340 of 807 Results