Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Shri A.K. Verma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. [Along With ... on 16 April, 2004

Prof. Sabiha Hussain vs Jamia Milia Islamia And Ors. on 18 August, 2021

In this regard, Mr. Khurshid has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) & Ors. vs. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 87, the judgments of this Court in A.K. Mitra vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 9184/2006; Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Jharna Banerjee and Ors., LPA 855/2015 decided on February 17, 2016; D.G.O.F Employees Association & Anr. v. Union of India And Ors., W.P.(C) 4606/2013 decided on October 14, 2014 W.P.(C) 8532/2019 and connected matters Page 26 of 52 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Workmen Virender Kumar & Ors., LPA 581/2010 decided on October 07, 2015 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Balwant Shankarrao Lovekar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., W.P.(C) 2035/2011 decided on February 10, 2012.
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 1 - V K Rao - Full Document

Thomas Cook (India) Limited vs Hotel Imperial And Ors. on 9 January, 2006

18. Mr. Kaul said that this decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the facts are entirely different. He said so with reference to paragraph 18 of the said decision where it is mentioned that the plaintiff who was a licensee had itself pleaded in 1992 for a short period to vacate the shop and the owners had even shown alternative premises to the plaintiff. These facts do not in any way change the situation and cannot constitute such a distinction that the ratio of that case would not be applicable to the present one. With regard to the time for vacating the shop, it must be noted that Section 63 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 itself provides that where a license is revoked, the licensee is entitled to a reasonable time to leave the property affected thereby and to remove any goods which he has been allowed to place on such property. Therefore, whether the licensee had such time to vacate the premises or he claimed such right under Section 63 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 would not make any difference. Such a right would be available to the plaintiff even in the present case, the license having been revoked by the defendants by virtue of the legal notice dated 15.02.2005, but such protection would be available only for a reasonable time.
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 131 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Om Prakash Dubey S/O Paras Nath Dubey ( ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Secretary Secondary ... on 30 September, 2010

In the case of Dr. A.K. Verma and others vs. Union of India and others [Writ Petition No. 732 (SB) of 2000] decided on 7.3.02, challenge was made to the selection of I.A.S. Officers under the Non-State Civil Service quota before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Allahabad. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench was challenged at Lucknow. Similar objection was raised that this Court sitting at Lucknow would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain such a petition, as it is only that High Court in whose jurisdiction Tribunal the Original Application is pending or decided, is situated, can entertain a writ petition.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Uppal And Co vs Union Of India on 23 April, 2016

11. Another relied upon judgment ILR 1954 Bombay 950 titled as K.K. Verma & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. of the appellant is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as now the law has been changed as per the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Suhas H Pophale Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2014 SC 1509 wherein it was observed that PPA No. 25/2015 Page No. 5 of 9 if the premises is in occupation prior to the Act coming into force then it shall be clearly outside the coverage of PPA (Public Premises Act).
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next