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

2005 Supreme(All) 409

ANJANI KUMAR
Ram Chandra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Nath Gupta – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K.MEHROTRA, M.K.NIGAM,

ANJANI KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant challenges the Order passed by the prescribed authority/viiith A. C. M. M. , kanpur Nagar in Misc. Rent Case No. 16/74 of 2001, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 32 and Section 34 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, here-in-after referred to as the Act and also for Issue a writ, Order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the prescribed authority to allow the application filed by the petitioner-tenant, referred to above and set aside the Order dated 4th October, 2001 passed In Rent Case No. 92 of 1997.

( 2 ) BEFORE coming to the facts of the filing of the present writ petition, It is necessary to state that when the matter was heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, prays that the case may be taken up on Tuesday next i. e. 30th November, 2004. On 6th December, 2004, when the matter was taken up Sri Nigam made a statement that he does not want to file a counter-affidavit and the writ petition itself be finally disposed of at this stage, as the questions involved in the writ petition are



















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