Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.32 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 12 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Shish Ram & Ors vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 May, 2000
43. Thus, as per operation of law even the respondent is a tenant of the
petitioner. Further, it is also settled proposition of law that there is no
estoppal against law. In Dr. H.S. Rikhy etc. Vs. The New Delhi
Municipal Committee, AIR 1962 SC 554; M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Radhey Shyam Sahu & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 464; Shish Ram & Ors. Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 84; Chandra Prakash Tiwari &
Ors. Vs. Shakuntala Shukla & Ors., (2002) 6 SCC 127; I.T.C. Ltd. Vs.
Person Incharge, AMC, Kakinada & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1796; State of
U.P. & Anr. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh
Samiti & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 675; and Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup &
Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 194), it has been held that promissory estoppel does
not apply against the Statute. It has been held that, "(The Adminstration)
only corrected a patent mistake which could not be permitted to
subsist.......... A contract in violation of the mandatory provisions of law
RC ARC NO. 6037/16 Sushila Devi Jain Vs. Rajinder Kumar Gupta Page 20 of 44
can only be read and enforced in terms of the law and in no other way. The
question of equitable estoppel does not arise in this case because there can
be no estoppel against a statute.
Chandra Prakash Tiwari And Ors vs Shakuntala Shukla And Ors on 9 May, 2002
43. Thus, as per operation of law even the respondent is a tenant of the
petitioner. Further, it is also settled proposition of law that there is no
estoppal against law. In Dr. H.S. Rikhy etc. Vs. The New Delhi
Municipal Committee, AIR 1962 SC 554; M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Radhey Shyam Sahu & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 464; Shish Ram & Ors. Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 84; Chandra Prakash Tiwari &
Ors. Vs. Shakuntala Shukla & Ors., (2002) 6 SCC 127; I.T.C. Ltd. Vs.
Person Incharge, AMC, Kakinada & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1796; State of
U.P. & Anr. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh
Samiti & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 675; and Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup &
Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 194), it has been held that promissory estoppel does
not apply against the Statute. It has been held that, "(The Adminstration)
only corrected a patent mistake which could not be permitted to
subsist.......... A contract in violation of the mandatory provisions of law
RC ARC NO. 6037/16 Sushila Devi Jain Vs. Rajinder Kumar Gupta Page 20 of 44
can only be read and enforced in terms of the law and in no other way. The
question of equitable estoppel does not arise in this case because there can
be no estoppel against a statute.
I.T.C. Limited vs The Person Incharge Agricultural ... on 30 January, 2004
43. Thus, as per operation of law even the respondent is a tenant of the
petitioner. Further, it is also settled proposition of law that there is no
estoppal against law. In Dr. H.S. Rikhy etc. Vs. The New Delhi
Municipal Committee, AIR 1962 SC 554; M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Radhey Shyam Sahu & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 464; Shish Ram & Ors. Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 84; Chandra Prakash Tiwari &
Ors. Vs. Shakuntala Shukla & Ors., (2002) 6 SCC 127; I.T.C. Ltd. Vs.
Person Incharge, AMC, Kakinada & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1796; State of
U.P. & Anr. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh
Samiti & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 675; and Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup &
Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 194), it has been held that promissory estoppel does
not apply against the Statute. It has been held that, "(The Adminstration)
only corrected a patent mistake which could not be permitted to
subsist.......... A contract in violation of the mandatory provisions of law
RC ARC NO. 6037/16 Sushila Devi Jain Vs. Rajinder Kumar Gupta Page 20 of 44
can only be read and enforced in terms of the law and in no other way. The
question of equitable estoppel does not arise in this case because there can
be no estoppel against a statute.
State Of U.P. & Anr vs U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S. & Ors on 2 May, 2008
43. Thus, as per operation of law even the respondent is a tenant of the
petitioner. Further, it is also settled proposition of law that there is no
estoppal against law. In Dr. H.S. Rikhy etc. Vs. The New Delhi
Municipal Committee, AIR 1962 SC 554; M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Radhey Shyam Sahu & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 464; Shish Ram & Ors. Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 84; Chandra Prakash Tiwari &
Ors. Vs. Shakuntala Shukla & Ors., (2002) 6 SCC 127; I.T.C. Ltd. Vs.
Person Incharge, AMC, Kakinada & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1796; State of
U.P. & Anr. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh
Samiti & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 675; and Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup &
Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 194), it has been held that promissory estoppel does
not apply against the Statute. It has been held that, "(The Adminstration)
only corrected a patent mistake which could not be permitted to
subsist.......... A contract in violation of the mandatory provisions of law
RC ARC NO. 6037/16 Sushila Devi Jain Vs. Rajinder Kumar Gupta Page 20 of 44
can only be read and enforced in terms of the law and in no other way. The
question of equitable estoppel does not arise in this case because there can
be no estoppel against a statute.
Sneh Gupta vs Devi Sarup & Ors on 17 February, 2009
43. Thus, as per operation of law even the respondent is a tenant of the
petitioner. Further, it is also settled proposition of law that there is no
estoppal against law. In Dr. H.S. Rikhy etc. Vs. The New Delhi
Municipal Committee, AIR 1962 SC 554; M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Radhey Shyam Sahu & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 464; Shish Ram & Ors. Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 84; Chandra Prakash Tiwari &
Ors. Vs. Shakuntala Shukla & Ors., (2002) 6 SCC 127; I.T.C. Ltd. Vs.
Person Incharge, AMC, Kakinada & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1796; State of
U.P. & Anr. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh
Samiti & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 675; and Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup &
Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 194), it has been held that promissory estoppel does
not apply against the Statute. It has been held that, "(The Adminstration)
only corrected a patent mistake which could not be permitted to
subsist.......... A contract in violation of the mandatory provisions of law
RC ARC NO. 6037/16 Sushila Devi Jain Vs. Rajinder Kumar Gupta Page 20 of 44
can only be read and enforced in terms of the law and in no other way. The
question of equitable estoppel does not arise in this case because there can
be no estoppel against a statute.
Sarva Shramik Sangh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.& Ors on 13 April, 2009
In Sarva Shramik Sangh Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2009)
11 SCC 609, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "The assumption that
there is an absolute bar on inconsistent pleas being taken by a party, is
also not sound. What is impermissible is taking of an inconsistent plea by
way of amendment thereby denying the other side, the benefit of an
admission contained in the earlier pleading. Mutually repugnant and
contradictory pleas, destructive of each other may also not be permitted to
be urged simultaneously by a plaintiff/petitioner. But when there is
no inconsistency in the facts alleged, a party is not prohibited from taking
alternative pleas available in law."