Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.23 seconds)
Documents citing Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 11 September, 1996

Sh. Bharat Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 25 February, 2015

4. In his written statement, D­3 has stated that present suit was filed without any cause of action because he (D­3) had merely repaired his already existing construction which had been raised before year 1968. Further, D­1 had no right, title or interest in the suit property as the same had already been given to D­3 in partition. Further, present suit was not appropriately valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. He has further stated that an electric pole was affixed by the Government in year 1960 when the Village was electrified. Even then, the construction was in existence and Suit No. 315/09/03 Bharat Singh v. MCD & Anr. 3 of 17 electric pole was installed near the property in question, meaning thereby the suit property was not in public gali. Further, the present suit was not maintainable as equally efficacious remedy could be obtained by proceedings for removal of alleged construction/encroachment from public way under Section 133 Cr. P.C. He has denied all other allegations/claims made by the plaintiffs in his plaint.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

New Delhi Municipal Council vs M/S Prominent Hotels Limited on 11 September, 2015

8.9. Associated Hotels of India Ltd v. R.N. Kapoor, AIR 1959 SC 1262, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 64 (1996) DLT 237, Sharda Nath v. Delhi Administration, 149 (2008) DLT 1(DB), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpalaya Printers, (2004)3 SC 694, Abdullah Ahmed v. Animendra Kissen Mitter AIR 1950 SC 15 relied upon by the Licensee have no application to the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 142 - Cited by 11 - J R Midha - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Lawrence Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. ... on 9 August, 2002

34. The decisions relied upon in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Pragati Builders and N.R.D.C. of India and Anr. (supra), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra), Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Indian Oil Corporation , Poona Municipal Corporation v. Shankar Ramkrishna Jabade (1968) 60 BLR 25 and Haji Dawood v. Municipal Commissioner (supra) do not lend any support to the petitioner's case. The impact of provisions of Section 116 of the DMC Act or the provisions of Section 154(2) of the DMC Act were not considered by the Courts in these decisions. Thus the decisions are distinguishable.
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 4 - C K Mahajan - Full Document

Sh. Madan Lal Sethi vs Madhu Manak Tala on 16 October, 2014

(II) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs MCD 64(1996) DLT 237­in para 8, interpretation of sec. 105 of TPA has been reproduced as - (a) it is a transfer of an interest in an immovable property whereby the lessee becomes entitled to the enjoyment of of such immovable property, (b) it carries alongwith it a right to the exclusive possession thereof, (c) the aforesaid transfer is for a consideration (d) the existence of the said movable property is a condition precedent for the creation of a lease. On the other hand, a license is (I) simply a permission to do or continue to do some thing over the immovable property, which in the absence of such a license would be a trespass, (ii) A license is personal to the licensee, who consequently has got no power to sub­ let, (iii) unlike a lease, a license comes to an end alongwith death of the licensee and (iv) the licensee has no legal status in land.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Azra Begum vs Chaman on 20 May, 2023

In the light of law declared by judgment of Hon'ble the Delhi High Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation's case (supra), the Learned Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the license granted in favour of Karam Illahi had come to an end with his death and the plaintiff could not claim any right in the suit property on the basis of such right and has, therefore, rightly held that the plaintiff could not maintain the suit on the basis that she had inherited the license from late Karam Illahi.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation vs Ram Lubhaya on 3 November, 2004

In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon Delhi Golf Club Ltd. v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation, 1997(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 257, Bharat Patroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1997(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 58, Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Bharat Brothers, 1998(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 96; Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad and Ors., A.I.R. 1983 Andhra Pradesh 239, Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta, 1986 R.R.R. 330, Municipal Committee, Khanna v. Sub Divisional Officer (C) Samrala, 1986 R.R.R. 334.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N Singh - Full Document

Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Batra Brothers on 30 May, 1997

The contention that the property was exempted from tax under Section 119 of the Act and Article 285 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the property belonging to Government of India was exempted was also rejected in Bharat Petroleum's case, holding that what was being taxed was the interest in land which had been passed on under the agreement and not tax on land belonging to the Government. We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd,. We, accordingly, hold that respondent No. 1 is liable to pay the property tax.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Y K Sabharwal - Full Document
1