Full Text
Translation output
A-23
%21.12.2009
Present: Mr Vikas Goyal, Adv.for the Appellant.
+ CM 18594/2009(exemption)
* Exemption allowed, subject to alljust exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
FAO(OS)647/2009
Learned counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention to the statement in cross-examination which is to the effect that the rent of a particular property is Rs 5,000/- per month. It is emphasized that this property is different to the property in question. In this regard, the Arbitrator has quantified the rent at Rs 5000/- per month by taking a clue from the statement of the appellant that with respect to the shops in the area where Pagri is paid, the rent is Rs 500/- per month as against the claim ofthe Respondent/Claimant that the rent is Rs
20,000/- per month. Secondly,it is contended that the Arbitrator has discarded or ignored the Balance Sheets that had been filed by the Appellant. Thirdly, argument is that the Agreement to
Sell is dated 30.1.1997, whereas the Stamp Paper has been purchased on the following day. These are all questions of appreciation ofevidence into which the Learned Single Judge as well as the Appellate Court should not venture. Learned
2009:DHC:13317
^. counsel has contended that some of the findings are based on no evidence; but he has failed to substantiate this argument.
No grounds for interference made out.
Dismissed.
-h
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
December 21,2009 nt
HIMAKOHLI, J.
2009:DHC:13317
%21.12.2009
Present: Mr Vikas Goyal, Adv.for the Appellant.
+ CM 18594/2009(exemption)
* Exemption allowed, subject to alljust exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
FAO(OS)647/2009
Learned counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention to the statement in cross-examination which is to the effect that the rent of a particular property is Rs 5,000/- per month. It is emphasized that this property is different to the property in question. In this regard, the Arbitrator has quantified the rent at Rs 5000/- per month by taking a clue from the statement of the appellant that with respect to the shops in the area where Pagri is paid, the rent is Rs 500/- per month as against the claim ofthe Respondent/Claimant that the rent is Rs
20,000/- per month. Secondly,it is contended that the Arbitrator has discarded or ignored the Balance Sheets that had been filed by the Appellant. Thirdly, argument is that the Agreement to
Sell is dated 30.1.1997, whereas the Stamp Paper has been purchased on the following day. These are all questions of appreciation ofevidence into which the Learned Single Judge as well as the Appellate Court should not venture. Learned
2009:DHC:13317
^. counsel has contended that some of the findings are based on no evidence; but he has failed to substantiate this argument.
No grounds for interference made out.
Dismissed.
-h
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
December 21,2009 nt
HIMAKOHLI, J.
2009:DHC:13317
JUDGMENT