Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.44 seconds)
Sh. Prabhu Dayal vs M.C.D. And Anr. on 23 March, 2001 cites

Anz Grindlays Bank Pie vs The Commissioner, Mcd And Ors. on 18 May, 1995

This case squarely applies to the facts of the present case. To the same effect is the judgment of this Court in the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank Plc Vs. Commissioner, MCD reportedas 1995 II AD(Delhi) 573. The contention of both the parties in respect of notice and demolition order are identical. In fact in the aforesaid case show cause notice or demolition order where not even produced. On the contrary in the present case the MCD has produced on record show cause notice as well as demolition order.
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 25 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Krishan Gopal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors. on 11 February, 1982

In Krishan Gopal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported as 2nd (1972) I Delhi 272, this court examined the question whether civil court had the jurisdiction in view of the provision for appeal and further in view of section 343(4) of the Act specifically providing that no court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings for injunction or other relief against the commissioner to restrain from him taking any action or making any order in pursuance of the Act. Relying upon certain decisions of the Supreme Court including in the case of Dhulabhai Vs. state of M.P. & Anr, the court held that civil court has the jurisdiction where there is an express or implied bar to entertain the suit if the authority concerned has acted beyond jurisdiction or contrary to the statute. On the facts of that case it was found that the authority concerned had acted without serving a notice on the appellant and had also attempted to demolish the alleged construction without serving the order of demolition on the appellant and therefore the appellant was debarred from filing an appeal to the District Judge under Section 343(3) of the Act. The suit was thus held to be maintainable. It was a case, as the facts would reveal, where admittedly no such show cause notice or demolition order was served upon the plaintiff/appellant and notice was served upon one Parmeshwari Dass, father of the appellant. On these facts the court came to the conclusion that it could not be said that the notice was served on the person at whose was instance the construction was being made; he was not in a position to identify the person at whose instance the work being carried out and therefore notice was not properly served in accordance with the provisions of Section 343 of the Act. Thus it was not case where notice was not served but on facts it was found that notice was not served on a proper person, and therefore, there was no service of valid notice in the eyes of law and in fact there was no demolition order passed at all. This case also has no application to the facts and circumstance of the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 11 - S Ranganathan - Full Document
1   2 Next