Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.48 seconds)
Sh. Bhishma Kumar Chugh vs Estate Officer (D)­Ii on 11 August, 2017 cites

Union Of India vs Smt. Deepa Sharma on 2 May, 2016

In view of  the same, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Union of India V.  Deepa   Sharma's     case   (supra)   as   relied   upon   by   appellant   is   of   no  assistance to the appellant. The facts in the said case were very different.  In that case, recovery was sought to be made from the legal heirs of the  allottee but no notice under Section 7 of PP Act was issued to them.  Further, one of the legal heirs was not even impleaded.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - V P Vaish - Full Document

New Delhi Municipal Council vs Shri Charan Singh Gupta And Ors. on 30 September, 2004

14.  There is no doubt that in Kalu Ram's case (supra), the Supreme Court while  examining the provisions of sub­section (1) of Section 7 of the said Act came to the  conclusion that the period of limitation would be three years. However, the said  decision arose on account of the phraseology used where the word 'payable' has  been   used   which   was   construed   to   mean   what   was   'legally   recoverable'.  The  phraseology   used   in   sub­section   (2)   of  Section 7  of   the   said   Act   is   quite  different, which is for the determination of damages. It is also to be noticed  that the introduction of Section 15 in the said Act bars the remedy of a civil  suit  and   thus,   it   is   only   the   proceedings   for   determination   of   damages   under  Section 7(2) where the amount has to be quantified.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 7 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1   2 Next