Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)
Union Of India vs Ravi Kanta Madhok on 13 March, 2012 cites

Prof. Ram Prakash vs D.D.A. on 17 August, 2007

In Ram Prakash (Prof.) case (supra), the learned Single Judge, on facts of the case, had highlighted that the lessor had been sending notices, being five in number, on various dates which were being responded to by the lessee and the lessor did not bother to consider the response filed as also the fact that the lessee had taken legal remedy against the tenant for the wrong committed by the tenant. The learned Single Judge quashed the demand. The view was upheld till the Supreme Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Delhi Development Authority Through ... vs Prof. Ram Prakash S/O Late Sh. Brij Mohan ... on 2 May, 2008

10. The counsel for the petitioner has based the case on the judgments of the Single Judge reported in 2007 8 AD (DEL) 313 of the Division Bench reported in 2008 (103) DRJ 57 and culminating in the judgment dated 15.03.2011 of the Apex Court in SLP(C) No.27278/2009 titled DDA v. Prof. Ram Prakash and in which case, finding that the DDA after issuing show cause notice had not taken any follow up action, the claim for misuse charges after 25 years was held to be bad and directions for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold issued. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent DDA in the present case also did not raise any demand whatsoever for misuse charges between the year 1983-90 when the property was under misuse and cannot after nearly 18 years make a demand therefor. It is contended that the petition is thus entitled to succeed in accordance with the said judgments.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 14 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Curewell (India) Ltd. vs Sahib Singh (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others ... on 18 December, 1991

The respondent DDA therefore can well be said to have rest assured that the misuse charges have to be determined by the Rent Controller and not by the DDA (See Curewell (India) Ltd. v. Sahib Singh MANU/SC/0302/1992 : 1993 Supp.(1) SCC 507.) The petitioner on the contrary by compromising with the tenant relieved the tenant from liability for any misuse charges. The occasion for the respondent DDA to recover the misuse charges would have arisen only upon knowledge of the said compromise. The petitioner in the present case LPA 787/2011 Page 13 of 14 in view of the compromise cannot also say that, had she been informed earlier of the misuse charges, she would have recovered it from the tenant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1   2 Next