//
archives

Central Bank of India

This tag is associated with 2 posts

With regard to the damages for use and occupation of the premises in question after 31.3.2009, as the second option has not been given within the time prescribed under the lease deed, the second defendant can be said to be unauthorized tenant. Therefore the landlord is entitled to damages for use and occupation. 13. It is not in dispute that it is agreed between the parties that for every five years, there is an increase of 20% in the rent. If that is taken into consideration, certainly, the landlord is entitled to a sum of Rs.24,000/- per month towards damages for use and occupation of the premises in question by the defendants bank from 1.4.2009. Hence, the damages granted by the trial Court for use and occupation of the premises in question by the second defendant bank are modified, and the defendants are directed to pay damages @ Rs.24,000/- per month from 1.4.2009 till the date of vacating the premises. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are doing banking operations in the premises in question and that there are many formalities and lengthy procedure for vacating the premises by the defendants bank i.e. they have to obtain permission from the Reserve Bank of India, and they have to secure suitable alternative accommodation for the bank, and hence, he prays to grant considerable time i.e. till the end of the year 2012, to vacate the premises in question. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, reasonable time can be granted to the appellants/defendants to vacate the premises in question. 15. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed, directing the appellants/defendants to vacate the suit schedule premises on or before 31.12.2012 and to pay Rs.24,000/- per month for use and occupation of the premises from 31.3.2009 till vacating the premises. It is also made clear that the appellant shall give an undertaking before the trial Court that they will vacate the premises in question on or before 31.12.2012. No costs.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU APPEAL SUIT NO. 558 OF 2011 12.09.2011 Between: Central Bank of India & another …Appellants And Kurnool Chit Funds Private Limited …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU APPEAL SUIT NO. 558 OF 2011 JUDGMENT : 1.       This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2011 in Original Suit … Continue reading

cheque bounce case should be tried and heard by the same magistrate and not by his successor= From the language of Section 326(3) of the Code, it is plain that the provisions of Section 326(1) and 326(2) of the new Code are not applicable to summary trial. Therefore, except in regard to those cases which fall within the ambit of Section 326 of the Code, the Magistrate cannot proceed with the trial placing reliance on the evidence recorded by his predecessor. He has got to try the case de novo.

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1703 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 723 of 2011) Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah & Another … Appellant Versus Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal & Another … Respondents J U D G M E N T J.M. PANCHAL, J. Leave Granted. 2. This … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,103 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com