A Simple Key For Advocate In Chandigarh Unveiled
It can be proved by any admissible and reliable evidence. Assuming that such is the finding, what is the ground for holding that a finding of benami is one of mixed law and fact? But no such principles arise for application to the determination of the question of. Advocates (look at here) Safest approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable mans inference on the facts. Be that as it may, the question whether there is a structural alteration in a tenanted premises is not a fact limited to the personal knowledge of the owner.
In view of such a situation, it was stated in the affidavit that the DTC vide letter dated November 09, 2010 had requested the DDA for change of land use. It is trite law that while reversing the Judgment the reasons given by the trial court ought to have been taken into consideration along with the entire evidence in that regard. They are not residing with any of the appellant nos. Hence, only the trial court came to the definite finding on structural alteration.
Further more, our attention was also invited to the fact, that no clear allegations have been levelled by respondent no. To him, if the conclusion on the facts in evidence made by the court below is possible, there is no perversity. 4, 5 and 6 are all married and living independently. 2 - Sonia Gupta against any of the appellant nos. it was argued for the appellant that what the Tribunal had found was that the intermediaries, firms and companies were benamidars for the appellant, that a question of benami was one of mixed law and fact, and that accordingly a finding thereon was open to review under section 66(1).
At the same time, DTC also accepted the position that as per Master Plan, the area was shown as river bed and no such construction could be carried our on river bed. The defendants could not shake that evidence. We have no hesitation to note that both the questions of law framed by the High Court are not substantial questions of law. In fact, that fact is proved partially from the evidence of the defendants themselves, as an admitted fact. It does not appear to us that question in this form should have been allowed to be raised.
That finding has been endorsed by the first appellate court on re-appreciation of the evidence, and therefore, the High Court in second appeal was not justified in upsetting the finding which is a pure question of fact. benami, which is purely one of fact, and none has been suggested by the ap- pellant. The wrong finding should stem out on a complete misreading of evidence or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises.
Even if such proceedings are not pending either before the Registrar or the High Court, the trial court, if prima facie satisfied that the plea regarding invalidity of plaintiff s or defendant's Trade Mark is tenable, may frame an issue and adjourn the case for three months to enable the party concerned to apply to the High Court for rectification of the Register. Same has not been done by the High Court. We were informed, that appellant nos. If not, the finding is perverse.
The finding of the High Court would bind the parties and the issue relating to the invalidity of Trade Mark would be decided in terms of those findings. The DTC and Delhi Government filed their respective affidavits explaining that the land in question was allotted for the development of a Bus Deport to be used during the Commonwealth Games which where to be held in New Delhi in October, 2010. But that is not sufficient to make the question one of mixed law and fact unless, as already stated, there are legal principles to be applied to the basic findings before the ultimate conclusion is drawn.
2 - Sonia Gupta with appellant nos. Since it was serving public purpose, there was necessity for such a depot. If within three months, the party concerned does not approach the High Court, the plea regarding invalidity of Trade Mark would be treated as abandoned but if such an application has been given hearing,, the suit would Advocates (look at here) be stayed awaiting final decision of the High Court. The only basis 721 for such a contention is that the finding that a transaction is benami is a matter of inference from Advocates (look at here) various primary basic facts such as who paid the consideration, who is in enjoyment of the properties and the like.
As such without commenting on the merits of the case we find the Advocates (a cool way to improve) judgment and order of the High Court to be unsustainable. Whether that is a correct reading of what the Tribunal bad found will presently be considered. Its determination may well depend upon the question whether as a fact the contingency suggested has disappeared by virtue of subsequent ,-,vents. Similarly, Under Section 111 of the Act, in a pending suit relating to infringement of a Trade Mark, if it is brought to the notice of the Court that any rectification proceedings relating to plaintiffs or defendant's trade Mark are pending either before the Registrar or the High Court, the proceedings in the suit shall be stayed pending final decision of the High Court or the Registrar.
Since they are married, and living independently in different places, they had no concern with the relationship of respondent no. The position taken by the DTC was that it was imperative to have such a bus depot which was utilised for operating buses in the city of Delhi and almost 900 buses were providing services from this Depot which was serving major bus terminals. 4, 5 and 6, namely, Bhavana Vershney, Renu Gupta and Tulika Jaiswal, are all sisters-in-law of respondent no.
Same is hereby quashed and we remit the case to the High Court to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law duly considering the reasoning employed by the trial court and Advocates (look at here) the entire evidence. That burden has been successfully discharged by the plaintiff by examining PWs-1 and 2. In that view of the matter, they are the sisters of the husband of respondent no. Even if the finding of fact is wrong, that by itself will not constitute a question of law.
