Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors on 27 July, 2007

Cc No. 1800/1 Mcd vs . R.C. Gupta 1/13 on 6 October, 2012

10. During cross examination he stated that he does not have any personal knowledge of this case. He stated that he has never visited the property No. G­55, DDA Flats, Garage. He stated that he did not verify ax to who is the owner/tenant of the property No. G­55, DDA Flats, Gulmohar Enclave, New Delhi (Garage). He stated that he cannot say how many report he signed on the day when he signed on this for this case. He stated CC No. 1800/1 MCD Vs. R.C. Gupta 4/13 that he has stated in his report that the report of Sh. Ashok Kumar is correct. He stated that this has been stated by him only on the report of Sh. Ashok Kumar, JE. He stated that he did not hold any personal enquiry in this case regarding the misuse of the said property. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. He denied the suggestion that accused has nothing to do with the property No. G­55, DDA Flats, Gulmohar Enclave, New Delhi and he has been falsely implicated in this case.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Stadmed Private Limited & Anr vs The Intellectual Property Appellate ... on 6 June, 2012

He has relied on the decisions in Collector of Central Excise v. M.M. Rubber & Co., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 471; Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors., (2007) 7 SCC 309; Samir Kumar Shill v. Union of India & Ors., 2007(60) AIC 519(Cal.,HC); W.P. No.7030 (W) of 2007 (Heiza Boilers (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.) dated July 16 & 20, 2009, Single Bench of this Court; Chemithon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Secy., Dept. of Atomic Energy & Ors., 2011(45) PTC 406(Cal)(DB); and W.P. No.22106 (W) of 2010 (SRRAK-REIPL JV. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.) dated January 19, 2011, Single Bench of this Court.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - J K Biswas - Full Document

M/S Regaliya Builwell Pvt Ltd vs State (Ministry Of Mining )Ors on 19 March, 2012

The case of the petitioner is that the date of sanction as referred in 37 (2) of the 1986 Rules has to be reasonably and rationally construed as the date of the communication of the sanction order. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner company Mr. Kamlakar Sharma has submitted that the sanction order dated 14-3-2011 issued by the competent authority having been received by the petitioner company on 31-3-2011, the petitioner company in terms of 37 (2) of the 1986 Rules was required to submit guarantee and bid/ tender amount as per Rule 33C and 33D of the 1986 Rules within fifteen days from 31-3-2011, and not from 14-3-2011. Reliance has been placed by Senior Counsel on Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Qimat Rai Gupta and Others [(2007)7 SCC 309], to submit that where a person can be adversely affected by an order, the date of order is to be taken as the date of communication of such order. It is submitted that as the obligations and burdens of the highest bidder flow from the order of sanction of the highest bid by the competent authority, the date of sanction' as referred in 37 (2) of the 1986 Rules, ought to be construed as 'the date of communication of sanction order. Learned Senior Counsel has further relied on CCE Madras Vs. M/s. MM Rubber and Co. [(1992) Suppl.(1) SCC 471] to contend that where a party which is affected by an order or decision has a right to his remedy against such an order or decision, such a party has to be made aware of the passing of such order. Counsel submits that in para 13 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that The knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either actual or constructive is thus an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision can be said to have been concluded and binding on him. Otherwise the party affected by it will have no means of obeying the order or acting in conformity with it or of appealing against it or otherwise having it set aside.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document
1