Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)

Ajit Singh Januja & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 1 March, 1996

32. Again reiterating the same view, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Labha Ram and sons and others v. State of Punjab and others (1998) 5 S.C.C. 207 has ruled that "the Government has an inherent obligation to provide all the licensed dealers sufficient accommodation for carrying on their trade. Merely providing an opportunity to complete with the rest of the public for getting accommodation in the new market is not sufficient to discharge the inherent obligation of the Government."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 186 - N P Singh - Full Document

Dr. H. S. Rikhy And Others vs The New Delhi Municipal Committee on 13 September, 1961

24. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.H.S.Rikhy's case (supra). Having interpreted the relevant provisions of sections 18, 46 and 47 of the Act, it was ruled that where the statute thus makes it obligatory that there should be a contract in writing and duly executed by the persons authorized by the Act to do so, the absence of such a contract cannot be cured by the mere receipt of rent from the occupiers of the shops owned by the Municipality. There being thus no relationship of lessor and lessee between the Municipal Committee and the occupiers of shops in Municipal market, the occupiers cannot claim the status of tenant/lessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 90 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next