Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)
Shri Devi Charan Gupta vs M/S Kapoor Lamp Shade Co on 18 August, 2012 cites

Subhash Chander vs Rehmat Ullah on 26 September, 1972

Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal, AIR 1972 SC 608, Janki Vashdev Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 439, Shakuntala v. Avtar Singh, 113 (2004) DLT 454, Parmeshwari Dass Khanna v. Bhala Nath Parihar, 18 (1980) DLT 372, Ghanshyam Sharma and others v. Surender Nath and others, 2009 LE (DEL) 354, Pearey Lal and another v. Surender Nath and others, 162 (2009) DLT 412, Mehar Ilahi v. Verha Mal, 22 (1982) DLT 384, Subhash Chander v. Rehmat Ullah, 1972 RLR 236, Venkatlal G. Pittie v. Bright Brothers Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 1939, Bawa Singh v. Pushpa Wati and others, 1980 (2) All India Rent Control Journal 376, Smt. Nirmala v. Ishwar Chander, AIR 1982 NOC 28 (Punjab & Haryana), Gurbachan Singh v. Shivalak Rubber Industries, AIR 1996 SC 3057, Kartar Singh v. Kesar Singh and another, 1980 (1) All India Rent Control Journal 1, Krishan Dev son of Pahlad Rai v. Jhabu Ram son of Kanhya Lal Brahmin, 1969 RCR 36, Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand, 1993 (2) SCC 614, Vidya Wati v. Bhoop Singh, 1979 (1) RCR 407, British Motor Car Company v. Madan Lal Saggi, AIR 2005 SC 240, provisions of the Delhi Building Bye Laws, 1983, provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the provisions of New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 it is submitted by counsel for the applicants that the respondent has raised unauthorised construction at the premises and has caused structural changes in the premises which are irreparable in nature and thus has violated the provisions of clause (j) of proviso to sub­section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 E. No. 08/08 Page no. 11 of 36 of 1958. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicants that the respondent has caused or permitted to cause substantial damage in the premises, therefore, eviction order be passed against the respondent and in favour of the applicants. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that the respondent in its application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC as well as the documents attached with the same has admitted having caused structural changes in the premises and nearby and therefore, ground for eviction stands proved against it. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that from the documents proved by the officials of the Land & Development Office (L&DO) the factum of raising unauthorised construction by the respondent is corroborated. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicants that under no provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 the unauthorised acts of the applicants can be treated as authorised. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that by way of the lease deed entered into between the parties the respondent was permitted to carry out such acts which have been permitted by the applicants and that is also only subject to the municipal law. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that even if the applicants have failed to prove causing of substantial damage by the respondent still under the provisions of section 14 (10) of Act 59 of 1958 the respondent can be directed to remove the damage.
Delhi High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Venkatlal G. Pittie & Anr vs Bright Bros. (Pvt.) Ltd on 21 July, 1987

Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal, AIR 1972 SC 608, Janki Vashdev Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 439, Shakuntala v. Avtar Singh, 113 (2004) DLT 454, Parmeshwari Dass Khanna v. Bhala Nath Parihar, 18 (1980) DLT 372, Ghanshyam Sharma and others v. Surender Nath and others, 2009 LE (DEL) 354, Pearey Lal and another v. Surender Nath and others, 162 (2009) DLT 412, Mehar Ilahi v. Verha Mal, 22 (1982) DLT 384, Subhash Chander v. Rehmat Ullah, 1972 RLR 236, Venkatlal G. Pittie v. Bright Brothers Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 1939, Bawa Singh v. Pushpa Wati and others, 1980 (2) All India Rent Control Journal 376, Smt. Nirmala v. Ishwar Chander, AIR 1982 NOC 28 (Punjab & Haryana), Gurbachan Singh v. Shivalak Rubber Industries, AIR 1996 SC 3057, Kartar Singh v. Kesar Singh and another, 1980 (1) All India Rent Control Journal 1, Krishan Dev son of Pahlad Rai v. Jhabu Ram son of Kanhya Lal Brahmin, 1969 RCR 36, Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand, 1993 (2) SCC 614, Vidya Wati v. Bhoop Singh, 1979 (1) RCR 407, British Motor Car Company v. Madan Lal Saggi, AIR 2005 SC 240, provisions of the Delhi Building Bye Laws, 1983, provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the provisions of New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 it is submitted by counsel for the applicants that the respondent has raised unauthorised construction at the premises and has caused structural changes in the premises which are irreparable in nature and thus has violated the provisions of clause (j) of proviso to sub­section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 E. No. 08/08 Page no. 11 of 36 of 1958. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicants that the respondent has caused or permitted to cause substantial damage in the premises, therefore, eviction order be passed against the respondent and in favour of the applicants. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that the respondent in its application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC as well as the documents attached with the same has admitted having caused structural changes in the premises and nearby and therefore, ground for eviction stands proved against it. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that from the documents proved by the officials of the Land & Development Office (L&DO) the factum of raising unauthorised construction by the respondent is corroborated. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicants that under no provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 the unauthorised acts of the applicants can be treated as authorised. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that by way of the lease deed entered into between the parties the respondent was permitted to carry out such acts which have been permitted by the applicants and that is also only subject to the municipal law. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that even if the applicants have failed to prove causing of substantial damage by the respondent still under the provisions of section 14 (10) of Act 59 of 1958 the respondent can be directed to remove the damage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 49 - S Mukharji - Full Document

British Motor Car Co vs Madan Lal Saggi (D) And Anr on 19 November, 2004

Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal, AIR 1972 SC 608, Janki Vashdev Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 439, Shakuntala v. Avtar Singh, 113 (2004) DLT 454, Parmeshwari Dass Khanna v. Bhala Nath Parihar, 18 (1980) DLT 372, Ghanshyam Sharma and others v. Surender Nath and others, 2009 LE (DEL) 354, Pearey Lal and another v. Surender Nath and others, 162 (2009) DLT 412, Mehar Ilahi v. Verha Mal, 22 (1982) DLT 384, Subhash Chander v. Rehmat Ullah, 1972 RLR 236, Venkatlal G. Pittie v. Bright Brothers Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 1939, Bawa Singh v. Pushpa Wati and others, 1980 (2) All India Rent Control Journal 376, Smt. Nirmala v. Ishwar Chander, AIR 1982 NOC 28 (Punjab & Haryana), Gurbachan Singh v. Shivalak Rubber Industries, AIR 1996 SC 3057, Kartar Singh v. Kesar Singh and another, 1980 (1) All India Rent Control Journal 1, Krishan Dev son of Pahlad Rai v. Jhabu Ram son of Kanhya Lal Brahmin, 1969 RCR 36, Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand, 1993 (2) SCC 614, Vidya Wati v. Bhoop Singh, 1979 (1) RCR 407, British Motor Car Company v. Madan Lal Saggi, AIR 2005 SC 240, provisions of the Delhi Building Bye Laws, 1983, provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the provisions of New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 it is submitted by counsel for the applicants that the respondent has raised unauthorised construction at the premises and has caused structural changes in the premises which are irreparable in nature and thus has violated the provisions of clause (j) of proviso to sub­section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 E. No. 08/08 Page no. 11 of 36 of 1958. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicants that the respondent has caused or permitted to cause substantial damage in the premises, therefore, eviction order be passed against the respondent and in favour of the applicants. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that the respondent in its application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC as well as the documents attached with the same has admitted having caused structural changes in the premises and nearby and therefore, ground for eviction stands proved against it. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that from the documents proved by the officials of the Land & Development Office (L&DO) the factum of raising unauthorised construction by the respondent is corroborated. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicants that under no provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 the unauthorised acts of the applicants can be treated as authorised. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that by way of the lease deed entered into between the parties the respondent was permitted to carry out such acts which have been permitted by the applicants and that is also only subject to the municipal law. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that even if the applicants have failed to prove causing of substantial damage by the respondent still under the provisions of section 14 (10) of Act 59 of 1958 the respondent can be directed to remove the damage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

P. C. Purushothama Reddiar vs S. Perumal on 2 December, 1971

Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal, AIR 1972 SC 608, Janki Vashdev Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 439, Shakuntala v. Avtar Singh, 113 (2004) DLT 454, Parmeshwari Dass Khanna v. Bhala Nath Parihar, 18 (1980) DLT 372, Ghanshyam Sharma and others v. Surender Nath and others, 2009 LE (DEL) 354, Pearey Lal and another v. Surender Nath and others, 162 (2009) DLT 412, Mehar Ilahi v. Verha Mal, 22 (1982) DLT 384, Subhash Chander v. Rehmat Ullah, 1972 RLR 236, Venkatlal G. Pittie v. Bright Brothers Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 1939, Bawa Singh v. Pushpa Wati and others, 1980 (2) All India Rent Control Journal 376, Smt. Nirmala v. Ishwar Chander, AIR 1982 NOC 28 (Punjab & Haryana), Gurbachan Singh v. Shivalak Rubber Industries, AIR 1996 SC 3057, Kartar Singh v. Kesar Singh and another, 1980 (1) All India Rent Control Journal 1, Krishan Dev son of Pahlad Rai v. Jhabu Ram son of Kanhya Lal Brahmin, 1969 RCR 36, Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand, 1993 (2) SCC 614, Vidya Wati v. Bhoop Singh, 1979 (1) RCR 407, British Motor Car Company v. Madan Lal Saggi, AIR 2005 SC 240, provisions of the Delhi Building Bye Laws, 1983, provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the provisions of New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 it is submitted by counsel for the applicants that the respondent has raised unauthorised construction at the premises and has caused structural changes in the premises which are irreparable in nature and thus has violated the provisions of clause (j) of proviso to sub­section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 E. No. 08/08 Page no. 11 of 36 of 1958. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicants that the respondent has caused or permitted to cause substantial damage in the premises, therefore, eviction order be passed against the respondent and in favour of the applicants. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that the respondent in its application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC as well as the documents attached with the same has admitted having caused structural changes in the premises and nearby and therefore, ground for eviction stands proved against it. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that from the documents proved by the officials of the Land & Development Office (L&DO) the factum of raising unauthorised construction by the respondent is corroborated. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicants that under no provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 the unauthorised acts of the applicants can be treated as authorised. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that by way of the lease deed entered into between the parties the respondent was permitted to carry out such acts which have been permitted by the applicants and that is also only subject to the municipal law. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that even if the applicants have failed to prove causing of substantial damage by the respondent still under the provisions of section 14 (10) of Act 59 of 1958 the respondent can be directed to remove the damage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 188 - A N Grover - Full Document
1   2 Next