Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 63 (2.47 seconds)
Documents citing N.D.M.C. & Ors vs M/S. Tanvi Trading & Credit ... on 28 August, 2008

Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs 1Mg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 8 July, 2019

inducement or procurement results in breach of a contract, the third party would have committed an actionable interference with the contract. Again so far from persuading or inducing or procuring one of the parties to the contract to break it, the third party may commit an actionable interference with the contract, against the will of both and without the knowledge of either if with knowledge of the contract, he does an act which if done by one of the parties to it, would have been a breach. Of this type of interference the case of G.W.K. Ltd. (supra) affords a striking example. If, instead of persuading B of unlawful action against him, A brings about the break of the contract between B and C by operating through a third party. A may still be liable to C, provided unlawful means are used. The act of the third party may be against the will of both and without the knowledge of either. It must however be with the knowledge of the contract. But the plaintiff is not obliged to prove that the defendant knew the precise terms of the contract breached; it is enough if the defendant's knowledge is sufficient to entitle the Court to say that he has knowingly or recklessly procured a breach. Proof of malice in the sense of spite or ill-will is unnecessary. It is no justification for the defendant to say that he had an honest doubt whether he was interfering with the plaintiff's contract, or that he acted without malice or in good faith. It is enough to show that the defendant did an act which must damage the plaintiff; it need not be proved that he intended to do so. It is certain that justification is capable of being a defence to this tort, but what constitutes justification is incapable of exact definition. It has been said that regard must be had to the nature of the contract broken, the position of the parties to the contract, the grounds for the breach, the means employed to procure it, the relation of the person procuring it to the person who breaks the contract, and the object of the person procuring the breach..‖
Delhi High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 5 - P M Singh - Full Document

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 5 September, 2016

Insofar as the judgment relied upon by Mr. Nayar in the case of NDMC vs. Tanvi Trading & Credit Pvt. Ltd, more specifically paras 32, 35, 36 are concerned, the challenge in the said case relates to a judgment dated May 19, 2004 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in CS(OS) 651/2013 Page 216 of 257 W.P. No.4154/2000, whereby it was held that the order rejecting building plans submitted by the respondents is illegal as well as without jurisdiction and declared that the building plans submitted are deemed to have been sanctioned under Section 241 (2) of the Act of 1994. It was further directed by this Court to return the building plans submitted by the respondents with an endorsement "sanctioned" within the time specified in the order. From the aforesaid facts and the paras referred to by Mr. Nayar, it is clear that the case before the Supreme Court was concerning Sections 235, 241, which are the provisions under Chapter XIV, which relates to the building regulations. There is no dispute, with regard to the building regulations/land and building byelaws, the Central Government is the Ministry of Urban Development and such directions are binding on the NDMC. The facts in that case are totally different.
Delhi High Court Cites 122 - Cited by 7 - V K Rao - Full Document

Date Of Decision: August vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 August, 2009

In New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Tanvi Trading and Credit Private Ltd. (2008)8 SCC 765, it was held that the Union Government has power to issue executive directions relating to matters dealt with under the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 and New Delhi Municipal Act, 1954, though directions contrary to the provisions of the Act cannot be issued. It was held to the following effect:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assocn. Of Vasanth Appts. Owners vs V. Gopinanth And Ors. on 13 February, 2023

He relies on the definition of the word 44 ‘communal’ in the International Websters Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language Encyclopaedic Edition (2004 Edition) to mean ‘common; public; belonging to a community’. He also would contend that the DCR was prepared in accordance with Section 17 read with Section 9C, Section 20(1)(d) and Section 20(1)(k) and Section 35 with Section 124. Rules and Regulations are authorised. He relies on the Judgement of this Court in R.K. Mittal and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others26and New Delhi Municipal Council and others v. Tanvi Trading and Credit Private Limited and others27. The impugned Rule is not an expropriatory action. It is only regulatory. The Rule is informed by intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object. The challenge is academic as the DCR is already repealed by the Regulation made on 02.09.2008. There is latches in filing the Writ Petition after 13 years of the execution of the gift deed. Even assuming the Rule is bad, the gift deed is beyond challenge. The appellants having maintained Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4766 of 2007, 26 (2012) 2 SCC 232 27 (2008) 8 SCC 765 45 based on the gift deed, cannot challenge the validity of the gift deed in the subsequent Writ Petition. Estoppel and constructive res judicata are principles which are enlisted in support.
Supreme Court of India Cites 186 - Cited by 1 - K Joseph - Full Document

R.K. Mittal & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 December, 2011

Further, this Court, in the case of NDMC & Ors. v. Tanvi Trading and Credit Private Limited and Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 765], not only took the view that even the interim guidelines issued in relation to Luytens' Building Zone till finalization of the Master Plan for Delhi would have statutory force and be treated mandatory, but also that such guidelines, so far as consistent with the Master Plan, would continue to be binding even after coming into force of the Master Plan.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 56 - S Kumar - Full Document

Khivraj Tech Park Pvt. Ltd vs Chennai Metropolitan Water on 7 June, 2011

17.In New Delhi Municipal Council and others Vs. Tanvi Trading and Credit (P) Ltd., and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 765, the Supreme Court held that the High Court must consider the public policy, guidelines, directions, statutory mandates while directing sanction of building plan. In following passage found in paragraph 39 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that approval for a building plan is only the date on which the approval was granted:-
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

Usha Rani @ Meenakshi vs The Commissioner on 7 June, 2011

9.In New Delhi Municipal Council and others Vs. Tanvi Trading and Credit (P) Ltd., and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 765, the Supreme Court held that the High Court must consider the public policy, guidelines, directions, statutory mandates while directing sanction of building plan. In following passage found in paragraph 39 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that approval for a building plan is only the date on which the approval was granted:-
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

Sundaram Auto Components Limited vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 June, 2011

61.The Supreme Court in New Delhi Municipal Council v. Tanvi Trading and Credit Private Limited, (2008) 8 SCC 765 has held that executive power of the State extends to matters with respect to legislature has power to make laws and the executive instructions can be issued in the absence of legislation and even if there exist legislation, it can also supplement. In paragraph 35, the Supreme Court had observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 106 - Cited by 4 - K Chandru - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next