Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Delhi High Court held that the law did not permit even the husband to take household articles including the jewellery without the consent and knowledge of his wife.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that even if the lease has expired the electricity cannot be cut off to the petitioner while he is in possession of the suit property.
Delhi High Court: In a matter with regard to the grant of leave to defend, Subramonium Prasad, J., expressed that, the tenant
Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi* and Abhay S. Oka, JJ has held that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*, JJ has reiterated the position that the tenants would not be
Supreme Court: Deciding the ambit of the bar of jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953
Supreme Court: Interpreting the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy (Andhra Area) Act, 1956, the bench of UU Lalit and S. Ravindra
by Abhishek Gulatee[1]
“Even if a male member had taken premises on rent, he is tenant in his individual capacity and not as Karta of Hindu Undivided Family in the absence of any evidence that Karta was doing the business for and on behalf of Joint Hindu Family.”
Karnataka High Court: Krishna S. Dixit, J. dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. Background The facts of the case are such
Rajasthan High Court: Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J., dismissed a writ petition which was filed aggrieved by the order of the Rent Tribunal
by Akshit Sachdeva*
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, Indu Malhotra and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that an agriculturist cannot part with
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., allowed a petition that challenged the impugned order whereby petitioner’s application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC
Supreme Court: Overruling the verdict in Appa Narsappa Magdum [Appa Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar, (1999) 4 SCC 443, the 3-judge
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., allowed a petition filed by the allottee of the subject shop who was charged with an offence
Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of A.M. Dhavale, J. dismissed a second appeal filed against the order made in first
Jharkhand High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Rajesh Kumar, J., dismissed a second appeal filed against the order of the trial
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Valmiki Mehta, J. dismissed an appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC against
Supreme Court: Explaining the rule of inference in matters relating to sub-tenancy or sub-letting, the bench RK Agrawal and Ashok Bhushan, JJ