Unauthorised Use - Judgment Search Results
Murray and Co. Rep. by Its Partner S. Sujan Gangadhar Vs. Appellate Au ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ639
and decree of the first respondent, the Appellate Authority, passed under Section 9 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (Central Act 40 of 1971) in CMA. No. 72 of 2005 dated 25.01.2006, confirming the order … any substance. An owner is entitled to deal with his property in his own way profitable in its use and occupation. A public authority is equally entitled to use the public property to the best advantage as
Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji of Indian Inhabitant and Jawahir (Je ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR200; 2009(111)BomLR2641
to show cause why the order of eviction should not be made against them, holding them to be unauthorised occupants, under the provisions of the Public Premises Act. According to the petitioners, the impugned notice is without … . A case is a precedent and binding for what it explicitly decides and no more. The words used by Judges in their judgments are not to be read as if they are words in Act of
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free