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

DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Bharat Investment Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Sanjana Saini – Respondent


Table of Content
1. non-appearance of the respondent. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. background of eviction petition and evidentiary issues. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 10)
3. right to lead evidence in legal proceedings. (Para 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. assessment of valid reasons for adjournments. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. opportunity to present evidence granted. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
6. conclusion and order set aside. (Para 24 , 26 , 27)

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of respondent.

2. The matter has been passed over and called out at second time. The respondent is still not available.

3. The court has accordingly heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and proceeds to dispose of the petition, as the issue involved is short.

4. The impugned order, dated 4th March, 2022, was passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller ("the learned ARC") in E No 78997/2016 (Smt. Sanjana Saini v. Bharat Investment Corporation), which was an eviction petition preferred by the respondent against the petitioner.

5. Given the limited nature of the controversy in these proceedings, it is not necessary to advert to the specifics of the dispute between the

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