Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Another vs Sunil Dutt on 27 January, 2010

Arun Kumar vs Estate Officer on 12 April, 2019

In the case of Union of India vs Sunil Dutt, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 314, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rejected the contention of Union of India that mere filing of the inspection report proves the contents thereof. It was also held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that mere presence of some family member or friend or relative of the government servant in the government accommodation at the time of inspection is not sufficient to draw inference of subletting of the government accommodation.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagat Singh vs Directorate Of Estates on 31 January, 2019

In the case of Union of India vs Sunil Dutt, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 314, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rejected the contention of the Union of India that mere filing of the inspection report proves the contents thereof. It was also held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that mere presence of some family member or friend or relative of the government servant in the government accommodation at the time of inspection is not sufficient to draw inference of subletting of the government accommodation.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suresh Chand Gupta vs M.C.D & Ors on 16 August, 2012

7. While relying upon the decisions in Om Apartment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DDA, 2009(159)DLT 176; Damyanti Verma vs. LIC, 2011(182)DLT 771; Deva Sahayam vs. P.Savitharamma, AIR 2006 SC 779; New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia & Anr., 2008 (3) SCC 279; Bhisham Dev vs. Estate Officer 2003(103)DLT 560; Estate Officer of Haryana vs. Mohinder Pal 2001(9) SCC 292; Union of India vs. Sunil Dutt 2010(167)DLT 42, it was vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of proof of the order terminating the lease of the subject premises, the petitioner cannot be treated as an unauthorized occupant and so, the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 stands vitiated and that denial of opportunity to lead evidence violates the principles of natural justice and that the ground of sub-letting no longer survives as the petitioner has been successful in getting the portion on the first floor on the subject premises vacated through a civil court order of 10th August, 2006 and some photographs of subject premises alongwith some receipts of electricity bills, cooking gas service (Annexure-C Colly) were placed on record alongwith short additional affidavit of the petitioner of 6th August, 2009 to indicate that the use of the subject premises is residential and finally, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no misuse of the subject premises by the petitioner and therefore the orders impugned herein deserves to be quashed.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Gaur - Full Document

Sh. Ramesh Kumar vs The Admn. Officer (Estate) on 1 November, 2011

The appellant has further cited "Union of India Vs. Sunil Dutt, 167 (2010) DLT 42" holding that where the members of inspection team did not enter into witness box to substantiate allegations of subletting of Government premises, no case of subletting is made out. Further mere presence of some of the family members of the respondent at the time of inspection does not establish and prove subletting. It however also does not support the case of appellant as the cancellation of allotment of 2006 has not at all been challenged in the appeal. The survey team had not confused the presence of Sh. Kameshwar to conclude the PPA No. 8/2010 Page no. 7 of 9 Government quarter having been sublet but had found it to be in exclusive possession of third persons twice. There was no request at any time for calling the members of survey team into witness box. In fact the appellant remained contented even though more than twice the amount of license fee continued to be deducted from his salary for more than three years.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1