Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (2.86 seconds)
Documents citing Surender Kumar Singhal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 3 December, 2002

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors. vs Surender Singh on 11 August, 2011

21. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12th May, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.3678/2009, titled as „Surender Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.‟, directing the petitioners to accord to the respondent the look after charge of the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 19th October, 2007 and to pay the arrears of salary is set aside and the original application being OA No.3678/2009 seeking directions to the petitioners to issue order for ad-hoc promotion of the respondent to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil ) and for the grant of all the consequential benefits is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances the parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document

Andhara Pradesh vs National Highways Authority Of India on 20 May, 2019

36. Ld. counsel in the strongest voice submitted that no relief ought to be granted to the petitioner, as the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and suppressed material facts and documents. Ld. counsel placed reliance upon Surender Kumar Singhal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi,11 and submitted that the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by this Court must be vacated and the petition be dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cc No. 1494/1 Mcd vs . D.S. Oberoi 1/13 on 18 February, 2013

24. Though Ld. AMP for MCD relied upon two judgment of Hon. High Court of Delhi titled as MCD Vs. Bhujbir Singh dated 17.01.1997 and another titled as Surender Singh Vs. MCD dated 30.11.2011 while arguing that ownership was irrelevant i.e. MCD was not required to prove that the accused was owner of the premises in question. However I do not agree with the Ld. AMP for MCD. Firstly both the above rulings were regarding unauthorized construction wherein the liability is affixed on the person carrying on the construction in contravention of the building by laws. Secondly, if not the ownership then alteast MCD was expected/bound to prove that the accused was somehow related to the property/premises in question i.e. either as a landlord or a tenant or a licensee. Unless the accused is connected with the property no liability can be affixed upon him. As is the case MCD failed to connect the accused with the premises in question. Similarly apart from the bare statement of the JE there is no proof of misuser.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Surender Singh on 20 January, 2010

1. This writ petition has been filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation against the order dated 10.08.2009 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in TA No. 330/2009 titled as Surender Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., whereby the Tribunal has set aside the punishment imposed on the respondent Surender Singh on the ground of discrimination, directed reinstatement of the said respondent but restricted his back wages only to the extent of 25% with continuity in service.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - M C Garg - Full Document

Cc No. 1800/1 Mcd vs . R.C. Gupta 1/13 on 6 October, 2012

26. Though Ld. AMP for MCD relied upon two judgment of Hon. High Court of Delhi titled as MCD Vs. Bhujbir Singh dated 17.01.1997 and another titled as Surender Singh Vs. MCD dated 30.11.2011 while arguing that ownership was irrelevant i.e. MCD was not required to prove that the accused was owner of the premises in question. However I do not agree with the Ld. AMP for MCD. Firstly both the above rulings were regarding unauthorized construction wherein the liability is affixed on the person carrying on the construction in contravention of the building by laws. Secondly, if not the ownership then alteast MCD was expected/bound to prove that the accused was somehow related to the property/premises in question i.e. either as a landlord or a tenant or a licensee etc. Unless the accused is connected with the property no liability can be affixed upon him.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cc No. 1281/1 Mcd vs . P.C. Chandan 1/15 on 21 January, 2013

26. Though Ld. AMP for MCD relied upon two judgment of Hon. High Court of Delhi titled as MCD Vs. Bhujbir Singh dated 17.01.1997 and another titled as Surender Singh Vs. MCD dated 30.11.2011 while arguing that ownership was irrelevant i.e. MCD was not required to prove that the accused was owner of the premises in question. However I do not agree with the Ld. AMP for MCD. Firstly both the above rulings were regarding unauthorized construction wherein the liability is affixed on the person carrying on the construction in contravention of the building by laws. Secondly, if not the ownership then alteast MCD was expected/bound to prove that the accused was somehow related to the property/premises in question i.e. either as a landlord or a tenant or a licensee. Unless the accused is connected with the property no liability can be affixed upon him. As is the case MCD failed to connect the accused with the premises in question.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cc No. 1275/1 Mcd vs . Ashish Khanna Etc 1/13 on 11 February, 2013

21. Though Ld. AMP for MCD relied upon two judgment of Hon. High Court of Delhi titled as MCD Vs. Bhujbir Singh dated 17.01.1997 and another titled as Surender Singh Vs. MCD dated 30.11.2011 while arguing that ownership was irrelevant i.e. MCD was not required to prove that the accused was owner of the premises in question. However I do not agree with the Ld. AMP for MCD. Firstly both the above rulings were regarding unauthorized construction wherein the liability is affixed on the person carrying on the construction in contravention of the building by laws. Secondly, if not the ownership then alteast MCD was expected/bound to prove that the accused was somehow related to the property/premises in question i.e. either as a landlord or a tenant or a licensee. Unless the accused persons are connected with the property no liability can be affixed upon him. As is the case MCD failed to connect the accused persons with the premises in question. Similarly apart from the bare statement of the JE there is no proof of misuser.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next