Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.36 seconds)
Nilender Prakash vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 September, 2024 cites

Uoi & Anr. vs Jor Bagh Asscn. Regd. & Ors. on 28 February, 2012

19. To bring force to his arguments, he placed reliance on the decisions Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed By:MAANAS JAJORIA Signing Date:18.09.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA 19:25:51 KUMAR KAURAV of this Court in the cases of H.R. Vaish v. Union of India1, H.R. Vaish v. Union of India2, DDA v. Aditya Kumar Jajodia3, Usha Kumar v. UOI 4, UOI v. Jor Bagh Asscn5.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Usha Kumar vs Uoi on 10 February, 2012

19. To bring force to his arguments, he placed reliance on the decisions Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed By:MAANAS JAJORIA Signing Date:18.09.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA 19:25:51 KUMAR KAURAV of this Court in the cases of H.R. Vaish v. Union of India1, H.R. Vaish v. Union of India2, DDA v. Aditya Kumar Jajodia3, Usha Kumar v. UOI 4, UOI v. Jor Bagh Asscn5.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Dda vs M/S.Mahabir Prasad And Sons & Anr. on 8 December, 2009

24. The aim and purpose behind such stipulation in the lease deeds was that when a lessee is permitted to transfer the leasehold rights, the lessor should not be deprived of the difference between the premium paid and the market value. The clause was inserted in the perpetual lease to compensate the lessor. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of DDA v. Mahabir Prasad6 considered the importance of such clauses in 5 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1230.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Software One India Pvt. Ltd. vs C&S; Electric Ltd. on 7 May, 2019

39. If paragraph no. 20 of the said decision is perused carefully the same would clearly indicate that the argument similar to the one being raised by learned counsel for the defendants/respondents in the instant case has already been considered therein. The Court has held that at the time when the 1992 policy was introduced, the Government was well aware of its rights and the perpetual leases granted by it which entitled it to charge 50% of the „unearned increase‟. The Court further goes on to state that despite knowing the aforesaid aspect, the Government took a conscious and calculated decision for conversion in its policy by providing that where the applications for conversions are made by the GPA holders Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed By:MAANAS JAJORIA Signing Date:18.09.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA 19:25:51 KUMAR KAURAV they would have to pay 33.33% of the conversion fee towards surcharge, while those in whose name the leasehold right stood mutated in the records of the defendants/respondents while applying for conversion had to pay only conversion fee.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1