Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.29 seconds)
Municipal Council vs Lekh Raj And Others on 22 July, 2010 cites

Sardar Sewa Singh Gill vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Delhi ... on 14 March, 1962

"5. I have duly considered the argument but regret my inability to accept it. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs were paying Rs. 60/- and Rs. 36/- per mensem respectively to the defendant as Teh Bazari which is evident from the receipts produced by them on the record. It has been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Sardar Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and another, 1966 P.L.R. 169 (Delhi Civil Revision No. 647 of 2009 [5] Section) that where some sort of permission or licence is given by the Committee by accepting teh bazari fee it cannot be held that any legal right was granted. The licence is not of the nature which cannot be revoked. It is further held that bare licence without more was revocable at the Will and pleasure of the licensor.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Metro Marins & Anr vs Bonus Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 10 September, 2004

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to S.R. Ejaz v. Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-op. Society Ltd., 2002 AIR Supreme Court 1152; Ram Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004)1 SCC 769; Metro Marins v. Bonus Watch Co. Ltd. (2004)7 SCC 478; Pramod Kapoor v. Nanu B. Amin 1993(1) CCC 114 (Allahabad); Parkash Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002(2) PLR 771 (P&H) and Tarsem Singh v. State of Haryana, 2005(3) PLR 595 (P&H) to contend that the plaintiffs are in established possession and, therefore, are entitled to protect their possession.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 111 - Full Document

Chandu Lal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 November, 1977

The matter was examined by a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Chandu Lal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1978 Delhi 174 : 1979(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 62. In that case the Delhi Municipal Corporation held an auction for the grant of licence of Kiosks and the petitioner was given the same in that auction. One of the terms of the auction was that the licence would be for 11 months in the first instance and thereafter for such term of renewal as may be mutually agreed from time to time. It was further mentioned that the licence was liable to be cancelled without assigning any reason and the Corporation was entitled to resume possession after revocation of the licence. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi cancelled the licence of the petitioner who instituted a suit for the grant of decree for permanent injunction restraining the Corporation for interfering, disturbing or dispossessing him from the Kiosks. He also filed an application for ad interim injunction. The Full Bench, after considering the matter, observed thus :
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 74 - Y Dayal - Full Document
1   2 Next