Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Babu Lal vs Delhi Development Authority on 8 February, 1991

Manmohan Service Station vs Mohd. Haroon Japanwala And Ors. on 17 May, 1994

(23) To the same effect are. the. observations as reported in Babu Lal v. D.D.A.. . Thus, in caw the injection order is not granted in. favor of the plaintiff he would, be dispossessed from the said areas. Thus, the prima facie case is in favor of the plaintiff, In case an injection is not granted he would suffer irreparable loss and damage, and monetary compensation would not afford adequate relief for him.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Sadhu Singh And Ors. vs Narinder Kaur on 16 October, 1995

(9) Counsel for the respondent asserted that the respondent was admittedly in possession of the part of the premises in suit and was residing there. It was stated. that the respondent has no other residential place except the premises in suit and the helpless woman is sought to be thrown on road without any shelter. Further that the parents of the respondent had already expired. Counsel relied on case reported at , Babu Lal v. D.D.A , Smt. Shakuntla v. Sh. Hira Nand Sharma 6- Ors. Kamlesh Shanna v. Bhu Dev Gaur, Krishna Rant Mahate v. Shobha Venkat Rao. The above cases are cited in support of the plea that even a trespasser was entitled to remain in possession, unless dispossessed or evicted in accordance with law. Counsel submitted that when the possession of even a trespasser is protected and he was not liable to be evicted except in due course of law and was entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner, the respndent's case was on a far better footing. It was urged that Appellate Court had granted the injunction in accordance with Law.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - M Sarin - Full Document
1