Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.24 seconds)
Documents citing Sharda Nath vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 4 March, 2008

New Delhi Municipal Council vs M/S Prominent Hotels Limited on 11 September, 2015

8.9. Associated Hotels of India Ltd v. R.N. Kapoor, AIR 1959 SC 1262, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 64 (1996) DLT 237, Sharda Nath v. Delhi Administration, 149 (2008) DLT 1(DB), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpalaya Printers, (2004)3 SC 694, Abdullah Ahmed v. Animendra Kissen Mitter AIR 1950 SC 15 relied upon by the Licensee have no application to the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 142 - Cited by 11 - J R Midha - Full Document

Ranjan Pant vs Kanwal Chaudhri on 5 August, 2024

Reliance has been placed upon Ramkishorelal and Anr Vs. Kamal Narayan 12, Provash Chandra Dalui Vs. Bishwanath Banerjee13, Sharda Nath Vs. Delhi Administration and Ors.14 and Sumathy Amma & Anr. Vs. Sankara Pillai Ananthakrishnan Nair15. It has also been argued that the report of the Ld. Local Commissioner is not reliable due to contradiction in the typed and the handwritten report and as it was prepared in the absence of Sh. Ranjan Pant.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kanwal Chaudri vs Rajan Pant on 5 August, 2024

Reliance has been placed upon Ramkishorelal and Anr Vs. Kamal Narayan 12, Provash Chandra Dalui Vs. Bishwanath Banerjee13, Sharda Nath Vs. Delhi Administration and Ors.14 and Sumathy Amma & Anr. Vs. Sankara Pillai Ananthakrishnan Nair15. It has also been argued that the report of the Ld. Local Commissioner is not reliable due to contradiction in the typed and the handwritten report and as it was prepared in the absence of Sh. Ranjan Pant.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bishwajeet Singh & Ors. vs Bikramjit Singh Through Lts. & Ors. on 15 February, 2023

vi. Partition of properties is, in substance, partition of FAR. Since the suit property's FAR can be divided equally, there are no practical or legal barriers to its partition. Reliance was placed on judgments of Supreme Court in Sharda Nath v. Delhi Administration,4 and of this Court in M.G. Ramachandran and Anr. v. MCD,5 which was upheld by the Division Bench.6 It was observed that the right to demarcate and construct upon property, without NOC from the other side, is permissible, and authorities will have no objection if the owner of a portion of a property, files an application for building plans individually or jointly, subject to FAR allocation. Parties shall also be entitled to apply for separate mutation, utility connections and other civic amenities. Here, as both sides would have access to municipal roads in the front and the back, as well as separate entrances to the superstructure, no hindrance is envisaged.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document

Durga Softelcom Pvt Ltd vs Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd. & ... on 31 August, 2015

In this regard, reference can be made to a judgment of a learned Single Judge of CS(OS) No. 2591/2015 Page 9 of 12 this Court in the case of Smt. Kanan Bakshi Vs. Sh. Atul Bali and Ors. 161 (2009) DLT 321 and a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sharda Nath Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors, 149 (2008) DLT 1. Since the later part of the lease deed being the Schedule of the lease deed containing a clause/notation for a minimum period of 15 years is in direct conflict with the earlier Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 which specify that the lease deed is only for a period of 5 years initially with only an entitlement of further renewals of five years each to the lessee at its option, and for which fresh renewals of five years fresh lease deed has to be executed but has not yet been executed, the lease deed in question therefore will only be of 5 years in view of the earlier Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 of the Lease Deed and cannot be for 15 years as per the notation made in the later part of the lease deed being the Schedule attached to the lease deed. In fact, I may note that the Schedule is not a typical schedule to a document but the Schedule in question is a part of a site plan which is attached to the lease deed.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Durga Softelecom Pvt. Ltd. vs Arcent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd. ... on 21 September, 2015

In this regard, reference can be made to a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. Kanan Bakshi Vs. Sh. Atul Bali and Ors. 161 (2009) DLT 321 and a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sharda Nath Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors, 149 (2008) DLT 1. Since the later part of the lease-deed being the Schedule of the lease-deed containing a clause/notation for a minimum period of 15 years is in direct conflict with the earlier Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 which specify that the lease-deed is only for a period of 5 years initially with only an entitlement of further renewals of five years each to the lessee at its option, and for which fresh renewals of five years fresh lease-deed has to be executed but has not yet been executed, the lease-deed in question therefore will only be of 5 years in view of the earlier Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 of the lease-deed and cannot be for 15 years as per the notation made in the later part of the lease-
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Harbhajan Singh Chandhok And Ors on 11 July, 2024

12. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, I found that Ld ATMCD has rightly reached to the conclusion that the respondents herein were within their rights to get the plan sanctioned. It does not amount to sub-division of the plot and is not in violation of the Rules 4.4.3 MPD. There is no merit in the appeal, same is dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next