Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 81 (1.46 seconds)
Documents citing Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors on 27 July, 2007

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

10. During cross examination he stated that he does not have any personal knowledge of this case. He stated that he has never visited the property No. G­55, DDA Flats, Garage. He stated that he did not verify ax to who is the owner/tenant of the property No. G­55, DDA Flats, Gulmohar Enclave, New Delhi (Garage). He stated that he cannot say how many report he signed on the day when he signed on this for this case. He stated CC No. 1800/1 MCD Vs. R.C. Gupta 4/13 that he has stated in his report that the report of Sh. Ashok Kumar is correct. He stated that this has been stated by him only on the report of Sh. Ashok Kumar, JE. He stated that he did not hold any personal enquiry in this case regarding the misuse of the said property. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. He denied the suggestion that accused has nothing to do with the property No. G­55, DDA Flats, Gulmohar Enclave, New Delhi and he has been falsely implicated in this case.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

1 Mcd vs . R C Gupta on 5 October, 2009

3. Prosecution examined one witness. PW1 Sunehari Lal Sharma stated that on 20.09.05, he was on routine visit in the area of West Gorakh Park Extn. He visited the Flat No. C­63, West Gorakh Park and found the 3 MCD Vs. R C Gupta growth of Adeas Mosquito breeding up to 1/3rd in one cooler of the house of the accused. He challaned the accused Ex. PW1/A bears his signature at point B. Sh. Vivek Tiwari, DBC worker was with him. The accused misbehaved with them and used filthy language. The challan was placed before Municipal Prosecutor on 22.09.05 for the prosecution of accused. During his cross examination, he stated that no notice was issued prior to 20.09.05 at the residence of the accused. The suggestion is denied that only MHO is empowered to challan under Maleria Act. He did not informed the police when he was misbehaved or threatened. It is correct that accused was not present in the house. It is correct that the challan does not bear the signature of his associate or of any other public witness. He did not collect mosquitoes from the cooler. It is correct that he did not send anything to confirm the growth of Adeas Mosquito in the cooler. It is admitted that he challaned the accused of his own. He obtained the signatures of the residents available there but he cannot recollect their names. It is correct that he did not collect any document to show that some other official was with him at the time of challan of the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Qualimax Electronics Pvt Ltd vs U.O.I & Ors on 2 June, 2010

28. Finally, we are left to consider the Supreme Court decision in MCD v. Qimat Rai Gupta (supra). The meaning of the word ―made‖ occurring in sub-section (4) of Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 was in question. Section 126 of the DMC Act empowers the Commissioner to amend the assessment list in terms of one or the other modes provided for therein. Sub-section (2) thereof provides for giving an opportunity to the assessee of being heard before an order of amendment is made. Sub-section (3) of Section 126 obligates the Commissioner to consider the objections which may be made by such persons. Clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 126 reads as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 11 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Mohit Gupta vs U.O.I & Ors on 2 June, 2010

28. Finally, we are left to consider the Supreme Court decision in MCD v. Qimat Rai Gupta (supra). The meaning of the word ―made‖ occurring in sub-section (4) of Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 was in question. Section 126 of the DMC Act empowers the Commissioner to amend the assessment list in terms of one or the other modes provided for therein. Sub-section (2) thereof provides for giving an opportunity to the assessee of being heard before an order of amendment is made. Sub-section (3) of Section 126 obligates the Commissioner to consider the objections which may be made by such persons. Clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 126 reads as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Nexome Real Estate Private Limited vs Shiromoni Flat Owners' Association & ... on 13 February, 2024

67. One may also refer to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Qimat Rai Gupta& Ors. Reported at (2007) 7 SCC 309. The Hon'ble Court observed at Paragraph 17 of the judgment that when an order is passed by a high-ranking authority appointed by the central government the law presumes that it 90 would act bona fide. Misuse of power should not be readily inferred. This principle, in our view, would apply to the concerned decision of KMC in granting relaxation of the required open spaces and sanctioning the building plan. Shiromoni has not been able to demonstrate that such official acts of KMC were in abuse or misuse of the statutory power vested in it by the West Bengal State Legislature.
Calcutta High Court Cites 110 - Cited by 0 - A Banerjee - Full Document

Nexome Real Estate Private Limited vs Shiromoni Flat Owners' Association & ... on 13 February, 2024

67. One may also refer to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Qimat Rai Gupta& Ors. Reported at (2007) 7 SCC 309. The Hon'ble Court observed at Paragraph 17 of the judgment that when an order is passed by a high-ranking authority appointed by the central government the law presumes that it 90 would act bona fide. Misuse of power should not be readily inferred. This principle, in our view, would apply to the concerned decision of KMC in granting relaxation of the required open spaces and sanctioning the building plan. Shiromoni has not been able to demonstrate that such official acts of KMC were in abuse or misuse of the statutory power vested in it by the West Bengal State Legislature.
Calcutta High Court Cites 110 - Cited by 0 - A Banerjee - Full Document

Nexome Real Estate Private Limited vs Shiromoni Flat Owners' Association & ... on 13 February, 2024

67. One may also refer to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Qimat Rai Gupta& Ors. Reported at (2007) 7 SCC 309. The Hon'ble Court observed at Paragraph 17 of the judgment that when an order is passed by a high-ranking authority appointed by the central government the law presumes that it 90 would act bona fide. Misuse of power should not be readily inferred. This principle, in our view, would apply to the concerned decision of KMC in granting relaxation of the required open spaces and sanctioning the building plan. Shiromoni has not been able to demonstrate that such official acts of KMC were in abuse or misuse of the statutory power vested in it by the West Bengal State Legislature.
Calcutta High Court Cites 110 - Cited by 0 - A Banerjee - Full Document

Nexome Real Estate Private Limited vs Shiromoni Flat Owners' Association & ... on 13 February, 2024

67. One may also refer to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Qimat Rai Gupta& Ors. Reported at (2007) 7 SCC 309. The Hon'ble Court observed at Paragraph 17 of the judgment that when an order is passed by a high-ranking authority appointed by the central government the law presumes that it 90 would act bona fide. Misuse of power should not be readily inferred. This principle, in our view, would apply to the concerned decision of KMC in granting relaxation of the required open spaces and sanctioning the building plan. Shiromoni has not been able to demonstrate that such official acts of KMC were in abuse or misuse of the statutory power vested in it by the West Bengal State Legislature.
Calcutta High Court Cites 110 - Cited by 0 - A Banerjee - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next