Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.38 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Nusli Neville Wadia And Another on 13 December, 2007
32. The point raised by Mr. Roy Chowdhury that the guidelines of the
Government of India have not been followed has also failed to impress me.
As has been held in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 3
SCC 279 (New India Assurance Company Limited v. Nusli Neville Wadia),
issuance of guidelines pertaining to the Act is not controlled by statutory
provisions and the effect thereof being advisory in nature, no legal right is
conferred upon the tenant.
Surendra Nath Bibra vs Stephen Court Ltd on 4 February, 1966
In
support of such submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the
Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 SC 1361 (Surendra Nath Bibra v.
Stephen Court Ltd.) and the decision of a learned Judge of this Court
reported in 80 CWN 939 (P.K. Roy v. Bimala Mukherjee).
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Chief Commercial Manager, South ... vs G. Ratnam & Ors on 22 August, 2007
33. One may, in this connection, usefully refer to another decision of the
Supreme Court reported in (2007) 8 SCC 212 (Chief Commercial Manager,
South Central Railway v. G. Ratnam). In paragraphs 19 and 20, it has been
ruled as follows:
Narendra Kumar Maheshwari vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 May, 1989
20. It was next contended by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, referring to certain
guidelines issued by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of
India dated January 14, 1992, that the manner in which the petitioner had
been dealt with is contrary to the spirit thereof. The KPT, according to him,
is bound by the said guidelines and could not have acted like a private
landlord. He contended that in proceeding against the petitioner, the terms
of the guidelines had been honoured in the breach and, therefore, the order
impugned in these revisional applications merit judicial interdiction.
Reliance in this connection was placed on the decisions of the Supreme
Court reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 440 (Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v.
Union of India & ors.), (1981) 1 SCC 166 (Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim
Singhji v. Union of India & ors.) and the Bench decision of the Bombay
High Court reported in 2004 AIHC 2613 (Persis Kothawala v. Life
Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai & anr.).
Maharao Sahib Sri Bhim Singhji Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 1 July, 1985
20. It was next contended by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, referring to certain
guidelines issued by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of
India dated January 14, 1992, that the manner in which the petitioner had
been dealt with is contrary to the spirit thereof. The KPT, according to him,
is bound by the said guidelines and could not have acted like a private
landlord. He contended that in proceeding against the petitioner, the terms
of the guidelines had been honoured in the breach and, therefore, the order
impugned in these revisional applications merit judicial interdiction.
Reliance in this connection was placed on the decisions of the Supreme
Court reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 440 (Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v.
Union of India & ors.), (1981) 1 SCC 166 (Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim
Singhji v. Union of India & ors.) and the Bench decision of the Bombay
High Court reported in 2004 AIHC 2613 (Persis Kothawala v. Life
Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai & anr.).