Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 594 (3.77 seconds)
Documents citing Shiv Kumar Chadha Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors on 4 May, 1993

Shiv Kumar (Dar) vs Shzaaz (Fir No. 401/22, Ps. S.J. ... on 28 April, 2025

31. As per the discharge summary, the petitioner was diagnosed with B/L NOE, LEFT ZMC, MIDALATAL SPLIT FRACTURE. The injured remained admitted in JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS from 26.10.2022 to 31.10.2022. The injuries on the person of the petitioner were grievous in nature. Looking into the injuries and treatment of the petitioner, I award Petition No. : 64/23 Page No.12/18 Shiv Kumar vs. Shzaad and ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal vs V.M.A.R.T. Ramesh on 13 August, 2014

95. As observed in Shiva Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others ((1993) 3 SCC 161), power to grant injunction is an extraordinary power vested in the court to be exercised taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The courts have to be more cautious when the said power is being exercised without notice or hearing the party who is to be affected by the order so passed. That is why Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code requires that in all cases the court shall, before grant to the opposite party, except where it appears that object of granting injunction itself would be defeated by delay. By the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, a proviso has been added to the said rule saying that, ?where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite-party, the court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay....?
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - T Mathivanan - Full Document

Rt Rev Dr. V. Devasahyam, Bishop In ... vs D. Sahayadoss And 2 Ors. on 8 February, 2002

Though Mr. N.D. Behetty heavily relied on the above passage of the conclusion of the Hon'ble Judge, it is to be noted that the said conclusion had been arrived at in a revision filed under Section 115, C.P.C. against the ex parte order of injunction passed under Order 39, Rules t and 3. Admittedly, it seems that the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, and Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, were not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Judge. Apart from this, the learned Judge had no occasion to consider the power of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have already stated that the case before the learned Judge relates to revision filed under Section 115, C.P.C. In such a circumstance, I am of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge is to be confined to the revision petitions filed under Section 115, C.P.C., accordingly the same is also not helpful to the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 20 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal vs V.M.A.R.T. Ramesh on 13 August, 2014

95. As observed in Shiva Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others ((1993) 3 SCC 161), power to grant injunction is an extraordinary power vested in the court to be exercised taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The courts have to be more cautious when the said power is being exercised without notice or hearing the party who is to be affected by the order so passed. That is why Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code requires that in all cases the court shall, before grant to the opposite party, except where it appears that object of granting injunction itself would be defeated by delay. By the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, a proviso has been added to the said rule saying that, ?where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite-party, the court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay....?
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - T Mathivanan - Full Document

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

11.9. The judgments relied upon by the Licensee, namely, Dhula Bhai v. State of M.P. (supra), Premier Authomobile Ltd. v. Kamlekar Snta Ram Wadke (supra), Raja Ram Bhargva v. Union of Inida (supra), DDA v. Darshan Lal (supra), Shiv Kumar Chaddha v. MCD (supra), Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India (supra), Abdul Gafur v. State of Uttarakhand (2008) 10 SCC 97 and Premier Automobiles Limited v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of RFA 78-2014 Page 61 of 156 Bombay (1976) 1 SCC 496 do not help the Licensee. The reasons given by the NDMC in para 8 are accepted.
Delhi High Court Cites 142 - Cited by 11 - J R Midha - Full Document

Rakesh Deep Occupants Association vs Delhi Development Authority on 27 February, 2012

(b) In the present case, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of material placed on record and in view of aforesaid detailed discussion as well as considering the ratio decidendi in cases titled as Manmohan deceased through LRs Vs MCD 68 (1997) DLT 801, Dr. Ms. R. A. Bhujwala Vs MCD 1996 RLR 320, Bahu Ram Prakash Chandra Vs Antarim Zila Parishad AIR 1969 SC 546 (wherein it was observed that bar of alternative remedy would not apply when the impugned order is passed in apparent violation of principles of natural justice), Harkishan Lal Vs Jain Textiles Trader 1994 RLR 88, Shiv Kumar Chaddha Vs MCD & Ors., 1993 (3) SCC 161 (wherein it was held that though the regulations and Bye laws in respect of building are meant to serve the public interests, but at the same time, it cannot be held that in all circumstances, the authorities entrusted with the demolition of unauthorized construction have exclusive power to the absolute exclusion of the power of S.No.27/09/99 ..... 31/33 32 the court are applicable in facts of the circumstances of the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ranbaxy Laboratories vs Punjab State Electricity Board And Anr. on 18 December, 2003

v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78; and Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161 were brought to the notice of the Court. The attention of the Court was also not drawn to the fact that the circulars issued are not in exercise of the powers conferred by the statute on the Board to create alternative dispute settlement mechanism nor the statute itself contemplate settlement of disputes between any of the parties.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - H Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next