Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S.Verma, CJI., B.N.Kirpal, G.T.Nanavati, JJ.
Jitendra Prasad Nayak
Versus
Anant Kumar Sah
Case No., 8466 of 1997
Date of Decision, 12/1/97
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) ADMITTEDLY, a cross-objection was filed by the appellant-landlord against the rejection by the first appellate court of the existence of one of the two grounds of eviction. However, while deciding the appeal of the respondent-tenant in his favour against the decision of the first appellate court on the other ground, the existence of the cross-objection appears to have been missed by the High court with the result that there is no decision given on the cross-objection. The impugned judgment cannot, therefore, be sustained inter alia for this reason. We are also of the opinion that the question relating to existence of the ground of bona fide need which has been decided in favour of the tenant requires a fresh determination by the High court along with the other point relating to default in payment of rent which was the subject-matter of crossobjection.
(3) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High court is set aside. The High court would now proceed to decide afresh in accordance with law the tenants appeal and the landlords cross-objection filed therein which would require a fresh decision by the High court on both the grounds of eviction. The High court is to render the decision after hearing both sides on the appeal as well as the cross-objection.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
