Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.30 seconds)

Panchshila Co-Operative House ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Anr. on 19 July, 1983

19. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel has argued that only a limited   window   is   kept   open   as   per   the   guidelines   of   the   Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dhulabhai's case (supra) and only those cases   can   be   entertained   in   Civil   Court   wherein   the   statutory authority   has   exceeded   its   jurisdiction   or   where   the   statutory authority did not comply with the provisions of the statute and did not   act   in   conformity   with   the   fundamental   principles   of   judicial procedure, however, in the present case, the statutory authority i.e. Assessor   and   Collector   had   duly   complied   the   provisions   of   the statute and had acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, as opportunity of hearing was given to plaintiff many times and all the documents submitted by the plaintiff before CS SCJ 84592/16 Page 15 of 20  PANCHSHILA CO­OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. V. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION the   statutory   authority   were   duly   considered,   before   passing   the impugned   order   dated   31.05.2016,   therefore,   implied   bar   of jurisdiction of Civil Court duly applies in this case and the limited window of challenge to the  order of the  statutory authority is not open to the plaintiff in this case.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

M/S. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. ... vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & ... on 24 July, 2015

24. With due respect to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the  facts of the  case  are completely different from the facts of the case in  M/s Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. (supra). In present   case,   the   entire   use   and   enjoyment   of   property   is   with plaintiff,   and   DDA   is   merely   getting   nominal   rent/licence   fee   of Rs.1/­ per annum. Therefore, effectually, the plaintiff is liable to pay the taxes, as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed. After due perusal of the impugned order dated 31.05.2016, this Court is of the opinion   that   the   Assessor   and   Collector   has   not   exceeded   his jurisdiction in any manner, and he has acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure and has duly complied with   all   the   provisions   of   DMC   Act,   before   passing   the   impugned order.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - P Nandrajog - Full Document
1   2 3 Next