Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.29 seconds)
Documents citing Ajiz Khan (Miyan) vs Union Of India on 25 October, 2017

Jyotinder Singh Saluja vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. on 19 December, 2025

15. He further submits that the respondent has violated the Shop Policy of 2014 and prescribed that the licence fee would be prevalent to market rental value and the said policy has been upheld by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Aziz Khan (Miyan) and others Vs. Union of India and others (Writ Petition No.11190/2016) and therefore, the Estate Officer has not committed any error in granting the damages as per the provisions of Shop Policy, 2014 and there was no need to hold any inquiry to assess the market rental value. He further submits that the damages are penal in nature and therefore, the damages may be awarded more than the market rate and after expiry of the licence period, the possession of the petitioner was akin to a trespasser and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay damages and interest as per Section 7 of the Act, 1971. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Preeti Kour Saluja vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited on 19 December, 2025

15. He further submits that the respondent has violated the Shop Policy of 2014 and prescribed that the licence fee would be prevalent to market rental value and the said policy has been upheld by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Aziz Khan (Miyan) and others Vs. Union of India and others (Writ Petition No.11190/2016) and therefore, the Estate Officer has not committed any error in granting the damages as per the provisions of Shop Policy, 2014 and there was no need to hold any inquiry to assess the market rental value. He further submits that the damages are penal in nature and therefore, the damages may be awarded more than the market rate and after expiry of the licence period, the possession of the petitioner was akin to a trespasser and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay damages and interest as per Section 7 of the Act, 1971. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. vs Avanindra Upadhyay on 6 April, 2026

17. Learned counsel for the BHEL has relied on Ajiz Khan (Miyan) and others v. Union of India and others, 2017 Supreme (MP) 795 whereby it was held the nature of possession of the petitioners, the arguments raised by the petitioners need to be examined. The argument is that under the previous policy, the license could be transferred in favour of the legal heirs, Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 08-04-2026 11:03:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26831 6 MP-1498-2026 but such condition has not been kept in the new policy. We find that the license is not heritable. It is an agreement between parties to allow use of a property.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V Rusia - Full Document
1