Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.08 seconds)
Documents citing Holy Health And Educational Society ... vs Delhi Development Authority on 24 May, 1999

Indian Telecom Service Association And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 October, 2005

21. On the conduct of the applicant-association, the learned ASG maintained that since applicants have not approached this Tribunal with clean hands and have also suppressed material facts from this Tribunal with a view to gain advantage which amounts to overreaching the Court, the present applications are liable to be dismissed. Reliance was placed on - 80 (1999) Delhi Law Times 207 Holy Health and Educational Society (Regd.) v. Delhi Development Authority; and 2000 (56) DRJ (Suppl) 90 (DB) Kanchan Kapoor v. DBA.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 29 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Victor Industries And Ors. vs Banarasi Lal on 5 September, 2006

In support of his submission learned Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of the Holly Health and Education Society v. Delhi Development Authority (1999-3)123 P.L.R. 60. Learned counsel has also pointed out that after withdrawal of the earlier application the landlord-respondent has been accepting rent and has acquiescence with the alternation whatever alleged to have been made. A plea of estoppel and res judicata would arise. Learned counsel has further submitted that the rent deed (Ex.A.l) is also inadmissible in evidence as it required registration under Section 107 of the Registration Act, 1908. The rent deed in the present case has been signed by both the parties whereas the pure and simple rent deed is signed only by the tenant. If rent deed is not taken into consideration then the landlord-respondent has on case. Learned counsel has also referred to Section 14 of the Rent Act and has argued that public policy require that no person should be waxed twice on the same cause of action. He has referred to the provision of Order XXIII Rule 1 and Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory ... on 20 October, 2011

"14. I have carefully perused the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision by the Division Bench of this Court and on perusal thereof, I find that the facts of that case and the present case are almost identical. In the said proceedings also two suits came to be filed by the plaintiff. In the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff, the Court did not grant any stay in its favour whereas, in the second case, the plaintiff did not mention and disclose to the Court about the rejection of the prayer for stay in its favour. The facts, therefore, in the present suit are identical and similar to that of the said case. In paragraph 14, the Division Bench of this Court posed a question as to whether it was not obligatory on the part of the Respondent to disclose to the Court that in an earlier suit filed by it, the Court had not granted any stay in its favour and if on such a disclosure having been made the Court still granted stay in favour of the Respondent, it could be said that the Respondent had not concealed any material fact from the Court ?
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ayodhya Devi vs Dda & Another on 7 January, 2009

26. The Division Bench held that the respondents were guilty of contempt and that they had made an attempt to overreach the Court by playing a fraud upon the Court and the opposite party. The respondent was, therefore, non suited in respect of the subsequent suit and was warned to be more careful in future. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Holy Health and Educational Society (Regd.) v. Delhi Development Authority 80 (1999) DLT 207.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Douglas Breckenridge vs Jhilmil Breckenridge on 21 February, 2012

26. The Division Bench held that the respondents were guilty of contempt and that they had made an attempt to overreach the Court by playing a fraud upon the Court and the opposite party. The respondent was, therefore, non suited in respect of the subsequent suit and was warned to be more careful in future. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Holy Health and Educational Society (Regd.) v. Delhi Development Authority 80 (1999) DLT 207.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next