SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1973 Supreme(Del) 28

PRITHVI RAJ
KULDIP SINGH – Appellant
Versus
KRISHAN KUMAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G.N.AGGARWAL, H.S.Dhir, S.S.Chadha

PRITHVI RAJ, J.

( 1 ) ON 11th October, 1972, when S. A. O. 192 of 1972 was taken up for arguments, a contention was raised by Shri Gopal Narain Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the said appeal was barred by limitation. That being so, the learned counsel for the petitioner after obtaining time, filed on applicate (C. M. 1128-J of 1972) under section 38 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein to be called the Act) read with Rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Act and section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the certified copy of the order of the Additional Rent Controller (herein to be called the Controller ).

( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement dated 11th April, 1972, passed by Shri Gian Chand Jain. Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. Along with the appeal an application under Order 42, Rule 2 read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code was filed seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the order dated 30th October, 1969, passed by the Controller, as also from filing certified copy of grounds of appeal taken before the Tribunal. The submission in the said application was that an application for obtaining c

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top