Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)Section 195 in The Punjab Municipal Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Hardayal Singh Mehta And Another vs M.C.D. And Others on 16 January, 1990
(13) There is no doubt that Rule 17 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1986 provides that the Tribunalmay, notwithstanding any of the foregoing provisions give such orders or give such directions, as may be necessary or expedient to secure the ends ofjustice. This would, however, does not mean that the petitioner becomes a necessary party to be imp leaded in the aforesaid proceedings pending before the Tribunal. Similar matter came up for consideration before this Court incase Hardyal Singh Mehta and Another v. M.C.D. and Others, (Reported as ) wherein it has been said that the only proper party could be the person who has claimed or alleged to have made the unauthorised construction and the authorities, who contemplate demolishing thesame.
Birendra Nath Mukherjee vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 22 August, 1972
(15) Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has taken a preliminary objection that in this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Tribunal was a necessary party and petitioner having failed to do so, the petition is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed in the case Birendra Nath Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal and Others, (Reported as Air 1993 Calcutta 94]. However, in view of my conclusions on merits, I do not consider it necessary to record any finding on this objection.
Section 225 in The Punjab Municipal Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1