Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.22 seconds)
Documents citing New Delhi Municipal Council vs M/S Prominent Hotels Limited on 11 September, 2015

Amazon.Com Nv Investment Holdings Llc vs Future Coupons Private Limited & Ors. on 18 March, 2021

In NDMC v. Prominent Hotels Signature Not Verified O.M.P (ENF)(COMM) 17/2021 Page 130 of 134 Digitally Signed By:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:18.03.2021 20:00:36 Limited, 222 (2015) DLT 706, the petitioner raised pleas contrary to the well settled law declared by the Supreme Court. In both these cases, this Court held the conduct of the litigants to be contemptuous and the action was initiated against the litigants.
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 1 - J R Midha - Full Document

Airports Authority Of India vs Hotel Leelaventure Ltd. on 15 July, 2016

16.5. Even assuming Section 56 applies to leases, the award is contrary to the well settled law that commercial hardship does not frustrate the contract as laid down in Alopi Parshad & Sons v. Union of India (supra), Panna Lal v. State of Rajasthan (supra), State Bank of Haryana v. Jage Ram (supra) Har Shankar v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (supra), New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. v. State of Bihar (supra), C. Bepathumma v. V.S. Kadambolithaya, Assistant Excise Commissioner v. Issac Peter (supra), Bharti Cellular Limited OM.P. No.1206/2012 Page 92 of 95 v. Union of India (supra), Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Golden Chariot Airport I (supra), Track Innovations India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India (supra), C.J. International Hotels Ltd. v. NDMC; and N.D.M.C. v. Prominent Hotels Ltd. (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 4 - J R Midha - Full Document

C J International Hotels Ltd & Anr vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors on 4 December, 2018

6. This Court has perused the record of this case and this case appears to be squarely covered by two judgments of this Court in NDMC v. Prominent Hotel Limited 222 (2015) DLT 706 and Airport Authority of India v. Hotel Leela Ventures 231 FAO (OS) 183/2018 Page 2 of 6 (2016) DLT 457. The counsels for the parties shall make submissions of the applicability of these two judgments on the next date of hearing.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Khem Chand vs . Ndmc & Anr. on 20 December, 2018

6. On   the other hand, ld. Counsel for respondent­NDMC has contended that there is no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. He has relied upon judgments -  State of Haryana Vs. Khalsa Motors, 1990 (4) SCC 659;  B. Sharma Rao H. Ganeshmal Vs. Head Quarters Asst., 1998 (9) SCC 577 and NDMC Vs. Prominent Hotels, 222 (2015) DLT 706.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Phool Kumari vs Sh. Joginder Lal on 20 January, 2016

Moreover, in the absence of any pleadings as to how and in what manner the forgery was claimed, no evidence can be looked into. We know that nothing can be considered which was not pleaded. Further no amount of evidence can be looked into for anything which has not been pleaded and even if it has been recorded, the same has to be just ignored. If any authority is required, I would refer to Union of India vs Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148 the ratio whereof has recently been applied by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in New Delhi Municipal Council vs Suraj Prakash Vs. Joginder Lal 9 M/S Prominent Hotels Limited on 11 September, 2015. Further, there is no help for the defendants side from the cross examination of plaintiff's witnesses so far as forgery of agreement is concerned. It is clear that the defendants side have failed to establish the forgery. The issue no.3 is decided against the defendants.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

New Delhi Ymca vs Sh. Prashan Singh on 3 December, 2015

3. From the plaint and WS, one thing is clear that the defendant does not contest the fact of ownership of the plaintiff or the authority of person New Delhi YMCA Vs. Prashan Singh 2 who filed the suit. A vague denial stating that it is denied for want of knowledge is no denial at all. We know that what has not been contested has to be treated as implied admission and, therefore, no evidence would be required on that count. We also know that nothing can be considered which was not pleaded. Further no amount of evidence can be looked into for anything which has not been pleaded and even if it has been recorded, the same has to be just ignored. If any authority is required, I would refer to Union of India vs Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148 the ratio whereof has recently been applied by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in New Delhi Municipal Council vs M/S Prominent Hotels Limited on 11 September, 2015.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Sushma W/O Late Brahm Singh vs Ndpl Through Its General Manager on 7 December, 2015

Apparently, the plaintiff has not led any specific evidence to justify this denial of suggestion. In such circumstances, I am unable to hold that plaintiff was disputing the existence of connection or any outstanding amount. It is well settled law that what has not been pleaded cannot be looked into and Sushma Devi Vs. NDPL & Ors. 4 even if any evidence is recorded on not pleaded case, the same has to be ignored. If any authority is required, I would refer to Union of India vs Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148 the ratio whereof has recently been applied by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in New Delhi Municipal Council vs M/S Prominent Hotels Limited on 11 September, 2015.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next