Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Rent

Rent

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) – Bonafide requirement – Nature of the requirement as stated by the landlord would be for running a garment shop .Mere non ­production of the approved plan or the documents to indicate financial capacity at this juncture cannot be held fatal in the instant facts

Sep 30, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH D. SASI KUMAR — Appellant Vs. SOUNDARARAJAN — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 7546-7547 of…

Rent

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Sections 15(1) and 15(7) – Payment of rent Amount of rent payable for the demised premises may be a factor which cannot be brushed aside, but the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, do not suggest any negligence, defiance or contumacious non ­payment of the amount payable to the landlord to warrant the taking of that “exceptional step” which is bound to render the tenant defenceless in his contest against the respondents­landlord.

Sep 29, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINA NATH (D ) BY LRS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH CHAND SAINI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M.R.…

Rent

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Sections 14, 14(1) and 14(2) – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Sections 2(c) and 2(i) – Eviction – High Court while setting aside the judgment of the first appellate Court held that Shiv Dev Kaur (having life interest in property) had created a tenancy in favour of the defendant and the relationship of landlord and tenant did not cease to exist on her death. The remedy of the appellants as owners was to seek eviction under prevailing rent control legislation and not by means of a suit for possession

Apr 17, 2019 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR RS GREWAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CHANDER PARKASH SONI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and…

Rent

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Sections 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) – Eviction–“Nagar Palika, Almora in the year 1996/1997 stating that the building was in a dilapidated condition and therefore the same is required to be demolished and still even after period of approximately 24 years, the building stands and as the tenants are ready and willing to get the building in question repaired at their own cost and the same is not to be deducted from the rent, This Court is of the opinion that one opportunity is required to be given to the tenants to get the building repaired “

Apr 14, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM PRAKASH AND ANOTHER — Appellant PUTTAN LAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Civil…

Rent

Landlord & Tenant-Eviction-Revision of Rent-Agreed rent which was being paid by the tenant with annual increment decided at the time of creation of tenancy (10%) is not liable to re-determined as per amendment in statutory Act fixing rate of annual increment (7.5%)–Rate of annual increment would be applicable after the commencement of amendment–Tenant cannot unilaterally revise the rent already paid as statutory amendment

Mar 17, 2019 sclaw

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 493 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 556 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Honble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph Civil Appeal Nos. 12561-12562…

You missed

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw