Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Shiv Kumar Chadha Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors on 4 May, 1993

The Forest Department Employeees ... vs Premchand Abhaykumar Mishrikotkar. on 29 October, 2021

6.         I have heard  Mr. Bhoot, learned advocate for the  petitioner /O.P.- Forest Department  Employees Co-op. Housing Society. At the outset Mr. Bhoot, learned advocate for the petitioner /O.P. has submitted before me that the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has not taken into consideration   various aspects and has passed  an exparte order without hearing  the present  petitioner. Secondly, Mr. Bhoot,  learned advocate  for the petitioner /O.P. has submitted that  the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has not seen that there was no prima facie case or material   to pass restraining  order  but despite  this fact an exparte order has come to be passed by the learned District Consumer Commission on 12/07/2021.  According  to Mr. Bhoot, learned advocate for the  petitioner /O.P. the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur had not taken  into consideration  also this  fact that  the owner of Flat No. A-502 on 5th Floor who was allegedly  carrying out construction  was not even made  party to the present  complaint  and nor he came to be heard. On  the basis of this submission Mr. Bhoot, learned advocate  for the petitioner /O.P. has argued that  the exparte order dated 12/07/2021 was not sustainable  in law and so deserves to be  set aside.    During  the course  of argument  Mr. Bhoot, learned advocate  has also  submitted that  it was not proper  or  open  to pass an exparte order against the present  petitioner without  giving  due  hearing to concerned  parties.  On this  aspect the learned  advocate for the  petitioner /O.P. has  also relied  upon  one judgment  passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court  in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha Vs. Municipal Corporation  of Delhi and other , reported  in (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 161. I have gone through  this judgment  in which  guidelines  have been given   regarding  grant of exparte injunction  and also  the manner  in which the  Discretion or  the Court has to be  exercised. It was observed  that before granting  an exparte relief  of  temporary injunction  Court must be satisfied  that  a  strong prima facie case has been  made out by the plaintiff including  the question  of irreparable loss and  also balance of   convenience. It is observed  that  power  of  grant of injunction  is an extra ordinary  power  vested in  the Court.  I have gone through  this judgment  but  I find that  the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has given  elaborate reasons for passing  the impugned order dated 12/07/2021.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indian Defence Service Of Engn Assn vs M/O Defence on 7 November, 2016

However, all these objectives would stand defeated, if the cadre review is not completed well in time. Moreover, if a statue requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner or not at all (Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. MANU/SC/0522 of 1993). Here, the Government has provided a cadre review to be held after every five years. This liability would be discharged in the particular manner, as provided. The review applicants cannot take shelter behind their own inefficiency and inaptitude.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A. B. Nirvan Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs President, Clubtown Residency ... on 19 January, 2018

But at the same time, I am in agreement with the view of the revisionist that in view of the decision in the case of Binod Khanna (supra) where several decisions including the decision in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha - Vs. - MCD reported in (1993) 3 SCC 161 were relied upon, the Ld. District Forum has failed to discharge its onerous responsibility in assigning reason behind the order.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kumund Singh vs Staff Selection Commission (Ssc) on 24 February, 2026

7.5. It is a normal rule of construction that when a statute describes or requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all. The popular principle of law is settled in Taylor v. Taylor, reported in (1876) Ch.D. 426, which has been cited with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and also in Keshav Adke v. Govind Joyti.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Drrakeshchadha vs Ndmc, Gnct Delhi on 18 March, 2014

In pursuance with the Commission's order dated 20.01.2014 in Rakesh Chadha Vs. MCD, a show cause notice dated 13.03.2014 u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 was issued by the Commission to the CPIO, MCD for delay in responding to the RTI application filed by the appellant dated 13.05.2013. Both the parties are present during the show-cause hearing. The appellant stated that there was a purposeful delay in his case. The respondent stated that there was no malafide involved and that the dealing assistant was busy because of a serious illness in his family and hence, the delay. The respondent also tendered an unconditional apology for the same and assured that such a mistake will not be repeated in future. With regard to the information, the respondent stated that information on point 1 has already been provided and for point 2, he stated that there were 3 RTI applications filed by the same appellant on similar points and that information on the same have also been provided. The respondent also mentioned that various opportunities have been given to the appellant for inspection of files while dealing with other RTI applications, but he neither turns up nor intimates in the same regard. Written submissions have been filed by the respondents in this regard.
Central Information Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1