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

2010 Supreme(All) 56

RAN VIJAI SINGH
Shri Krishna Lal – Appellant
Versus
Additional District Judge – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Anil Kumar,S.D. Kautilya
S.D. Ojha

JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.

Heard Sri R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.D. Ojha as well as Sri Raj Narain Tiwari learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Sri R.K. Jain learned senior counsel has contended before the court that there is no specific averment in the application filed under section 21(1) A Act no. 13,1972 that there is need of disputed premises for starting business and only desire has been expressed in para 5 of the application. No affidavit to that effect has been filed by the daughters of Smt. Archana Badera for whom shop was required. In his submissions, daughters have already been engaged somewhere and they do not desire to join the business. It has also been contended that bonafide need is to be pleaded and proved for release of accommodation. In view of that matter requires consideration.

3. Issue notice.

4. Sri S.D. Ojha has filed caveat on behalf of respondent no.4 and Sri Raj Narain Tiwari has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.7., therefore, notices need not be served on respondents no. 4 and 7.

Issue notice to respondents n. 3, 5, 6, 8 & 9 through registered post re




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