SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 239

A. M. AHMADI, B. N. KIRPAL, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Outdoor Advertisers Association – Respondent


ORDER

1. The appeal is taken on board.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Since the hoardings have been removed, the grievance of the MCD does not survive so far as that aspect is concerned. However, the learned counsel for the MCD contends that the Division Bench of the High Court was wrong holding that before removal of the hoardings a show-cause notice is a must. We think that the learned counsel for the MCD is on a firm ground so far as this contention is concerned because once the period of the contract comes to an end by efflux of time the right to advertise ceases and the hoardings ought to be removed and there is no question of the removal being preceded by a show-cause notice. Therefore, the observation of the Division Bench to this extent does not appear to be correct. The appeal will stand disposed of with this modification in the order. There will be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top