Dismissed

Rakesh Mittal v. M/S Ally Venture and Company and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Mar 2018CR/8779/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two civil revisions challenging the District Judge’s refusal to transfer rent petitions. The court upheld findings that the landlord’s alleged proximity was insufficient for transfer and noted the case was pending due to the tenant’s action plan.

What did the court decide?

Both civil revision petitions dismissed; pending C.M. also disposed of.

Rakesh Mittal Vs M/S Ally Venture and Company… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

Anuradha 2018.03.15 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

¶2

Date of Decision : 12.3.2018

¶3

106

¶4

CR-8779-2017 (O&M)

¶5

Rakesh Mittal ....Appellant

¶6

¶7

M/s. Ally Venture & Company and others ....Respondents

¶8

106-A CR-8781-2017 (O&M)

¶9

Rakesh Mittal ....Appellant

¶10

¶11

M/s. Ally Venture & Company and others ....Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶13

Present: Mr.K.K.Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

¶14

¶15

AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral)

¶16

This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two civil revisions as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.

¶17

These two petitions have been filed against the order of the District Judge declining to transfer rent petitions from the Court of Sh. Varun Nagpal, PCS, Rent Controller, Bathinda to any other Court.

¶18

The ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent-landlord was openly proclaiming that he had access to the judicial officer and this was also clear from the fact that when the officer dismissed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 he did not give

¶19

Anuradha 2018.03.15 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and the petitioner even time to challenge that order. Learned District Judge integrity of this document found that the case was one of the action plan cases which is pending for four years at the behest of the petitioner-tenant. It is further noticed that a mere allegation that one party proclaiming proximity cannot be a ground for transfer. Learned counsel is not in a position to explain how these findings are wrong.

¶20

Consequently, both the petitions are dismissed.

¶21

Since the main cases have been decided, the pending C.M, if

¶22

any, also stand disposed of.

¶23

12.3.2018 anuradha	(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned - Yes/No
	Whether reportable - Yes/No

Rakesh Mittal v. M/S Ally Venture and Company and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Mittal v. M/S Ally Venture and Company and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Sagar Vs Surjan

Jagjit Singh and Ors. Vs Nairlep Singh and Ors.

Jaswant Kaur & Ors. Vs Jaswant Kaur @ Basant Kaur & Ors.

(O&M) Hari Singh Vs Ram Palmehra

Paramjit Kaur & Ors. Vs Dinesh Kumar & Ors.

(O&M) Beeta and Others Vs Shri Harish Kumar and Another