S.K.GANGELE, PIYUSH MATHUR
Jogendra Singh Pal – Appellant
Versus
Omprakash Gupta – Respondent
Mathur, J. --1. This writ petition has been preferred by the defendant tenant/petitioner Jogendra Singh Pal, a tenant inducted in the premises owned by the plaintiffs-respondents Omprakash Gupta, Khem Chand Gupta, Radhelal Gupta and Kalicharan Gupta whose application, preferred under Order 16 rule 1 (6) of CPC has been rejected vide order dated 12.12.2009 by the 8th Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.48N2009.
2. The plaintiffs have preferred a suit seeking eviction of the tenant in terms of the provisions of section 12(1)(a) and (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act by demonstrating the personal need of plaintiff-respondent No.3 and his son for running a business. The plaint allegations were denied by the defendant-tenant in his written statement by advancing the defence that the disputed shop is not actually required for commencing the business as the persons for whom the need has been raised are already running a business of selling readymade garments.
3. The record reveals that on previous two occasions, the tenant Jogendra Singh Pal/defendant-petitioner has approached this Court in Writ Petition No.5659/2006 and the landlord in Writ Petition No.3608/200
8. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. L.K. Tripathi and others
9. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu
5. Laxmi Raj Shetty and another v. State of Tamil Nadu
6. Laxmi Raj Shetty and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported as = AIR 1988 SC 1274
2. Laxmi Raj Shetty and another v. State of Tamil Nadu = AIR 1988 SC 1274
4. Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab = AIR 1971 SC 1864
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.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.