Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.02 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Ashok Caterers vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 19 February, 1997

Kalpeshbhai Kiritbhai Shah vs Dy. Executive Engineer on 19 October, 2023

(D) In the case of Ashok Caterers v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, reported in 1997 SCC 220, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that expiry of authority to occupy occurs by reason of the terms or conditions of occupation. Any order of eviction on the ground of either "expiry" or "due determination" has to be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the statute. Paragraph-4 read thus :-
Gujarat High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - V Nanavati - Full Document

K. Vasudeva And Ors. vs The Corporation Of The City Of Bangalore ... on 18 June, 2001

7. In this regard, the Apex Court, in the case stated supra J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, at paras 9 and 10 has elaborately laid down the law. Therefore, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents submits that, Section 288D is the power conferred upon the Commissioner in respect of removal of either encroachment and erection of structure in respect of "public place" or "public street". The Corporation has got a statutory duty to comply with removing of either unauthorised occupation or encroachment upon such places referred to supra. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Corporation prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions contending that the petitioners have no legal and statutory rights in respect of the property in question for grant of the reliefs. It is further contended by them that representations submitted by the petitioners in the connected petitions are not required to be considered by the Corporation for grant of relief as prayed in their representations as the petitioners have no existing statutory and legal right and therefore there is no corresponding statutory duty cast upon the Corporation for considering the representations of the petitioners. It is contended by the respondents Counsel that even assuming for the sake of argument that petitioners have got statutory right under the special enactment namely Act of 1974 and law applicable to the cases upon which reliance is placed by the petitioners Counsel as cited to supra in this order while referring to the legal submissions on behalf of the petitioners, the Corporation has got power under Section 288D of the Act for either removal of encroachment or occupation in respect of public premises. As could be seen from the documents produced by them particularly in the first batch of writ petitions there is a recital in the document at para (1) of the lease deed that the period of lease is for three years with effect from the date of execution of lease deed and further petitioners have not produced any document to show that they had authority as required in law to continue in occupation of the conservancy lane which is the subject-matter of these petitions, after efflux of original time granted in the lease deed. Further, it is contended by the respondents Counsel that petitioners are not entitled for the discretionary relief at the hands of this Court in these cases as they have been in unauthorised possession as the original period of lease has expired by efflux of time and in the absence of documents to show that the petitioners have been continued in possession of their respective premises under the authority in law and therefore their unauthorised occupation and encroachment shall be removed by the Corporation in exercise of its power under Section 288D of the Act of 1976 and the petitioners are not entitled to take statutory protection under the provisions of the Act 1974 in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Caterers v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (BEST Undertaking), at paras 4 and 5, further they have put up structures without obtaining necessary sanctioned plan and licences from the Corporation as required under the provisions of the Act 1976 and Bye-laws, thereby the petitioners have violated rule of law. In this view of the matter, they have prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions with exemplary costs. The petitioners Counsel in W.P. No. 21829 of 2001 submits that, there is no lease deed in respect of property in question and in respect of other petitioners, lease deed has been executed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - V G Gowda - Full Document

M/S Ashima Securities Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 27 January, 2010

43. Adverting to the plaintiff's contention that the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed from the suit property other than in accordance with law and the reliance placed by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Ashok Caterers case (supra), I am of the view that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the said case has no application to the facts of the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 4 - R Khetrapal - Full Document

The Municipal Board Nokha vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 August, 2008

Learned counsel for the Municipal Board invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ashok Caterers Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, reported in (1997) 9 SCC-220. In that judgment, in such circumstances, the provisions of Section 105 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, was held to be applicable in that case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - N P Gupta - Full Document
1