<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (4) TMI 1120 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183959</link>
    <description>Order 12 Rule 6 CPC permits judgment on admissions where there is no real controversy, and admissions may be gathered from pleadings, applications and conduct; the tenant&#039;s admission of the landlord-tenant relationship, default in rent and receipt of termination notice justified decree on admission. Relief against forfeiture under Section 114 TPA is equitable and unavailable to a party taking inconsistent stands, so the tenant&#039;s approbation and reprobation disentitled it to such relief. A tenant is also estopped from denying the lessor&#039;s title during the tenancy, and the tenant&#039;s conduct did not warrant discretionary interference under Article 136.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2023 11:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 1120 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183959</link>
      <description>Order 12 Rule 6 CPC permits judgment on admissions where there is no real controversy, and admissions may be gathered from pleadings, applications and conduct; the tenant&#039;s admission of the landlord-tenant relationship, default in rent and receipt of termination notice justified decree on admission. Relief against forfeiture under Section 114 TPA is equitable and unavailable to a party taking inconsistent stands, so the tenant&#039;s approbation and reprobation disentitled it to such relief. A tenant is also estopped from denying the lessor&#039;s title during the tenancy, and the tenant&#039;s conduct did not warrant discretionary interference under Article 136.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>