Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.61 seconds)
Dhurjati Prosad Das vs Union Of India And Others on 30 August, 2013 cites

J.K. Construction Engineers And ... vs The Union Of India (Uoi) Through ... on 28 February, 2006

The petitioner has also placed a Single Bench judgment reported at (2002) 2 CHN 473 (S.K. Chatterjee & Sons v. Union of India) in the context of the railways taking forcible possession of a tea stall upon the failure of the licencee to pay the licence fees. It was observed in such judgment that until an eviction order was passed against the licencee under the 1971 Act, the licencee was entitled to remain in possession of the railway property. The judgment in S.K. Chatterjee & Sons has recently been held to be per incuriam by a Single Bench of this court in an unreported judgment rendered on July 10, 2012 in W.P No. 12581(W) of 2012 on the ground that it failed to notice Section 147 of the Railways Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 118 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh Etc on 17 January, 1989

In the judgment reported at (1989) 2 SCC 505 (State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh), which has been placed by the petitioner and also referred to in Vishnunarayan & Associates (P) Ltd, the Supreme Court recognised that just as an ordinary lessor, with the best of title, had no right to resume possession extra-judiciary by use of force, from a lessee, even after the expiry or earlier termination of the lease, the State as lessor could equally not do so. It was observed that the State is under an additional inhibition stemming from the requirement that all actions of government and governmental authorities should have a 'legal pedigree'. The court emphasised that possession could by resumed by any government in respect of any government property "only in a manner known to or recognised by law."
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 528 - M Rangnath - Full Document
1   2 Next