Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 218 (3.00 seconds)
Documents citing K.K. Bhalla vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 13 January, 2006

Ram Avtar. Etc.Etc. vs The State Of Haryana on 20 September, 2017

“56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh AIR 1995 SC 705; Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi AIR 2003 SC 1241; Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana AIR 2005 SC 565; K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. AIR 2006 SC 898; Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K (2008) 9 SCC 24; Upendra 22 Narayan Singh (supra); and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal AIR 2010 SC 3455).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Peeyush Jain vs State Of M.P on 31 January, 2022

14. The petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that despite directions/orders/writs and directions given by this court in writ petitions Indore Devpolment Authority has not taken any action and sleeping over the matter which is nothing but the continuation of illegal possession by the newspaper agencies over the plots without there being any deed. This court vide order dated 19.02.2008 passed in writ petition no.4806/2007 has directed the Indore Devpolment Authority as well as the State Government to take final order. Now Indore Devpolment Authority has taken a decision and divided 25 allotments into five categories and explain the action taken in respect of the allotment falling in these five categories. In case of where the allotment has been cancelled the newspaper agencies concerned respondent has filed fresh petitions challenging the action. If the petitioner is having any grievance against the said decision he may intervene in those writ petitions. The State Government has taken a cabinet decision in respect of 12 newspaper agencies therefore, now no more issue is pending before the state government as well as the Indore Development Authority .
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - V Rusia - Full Document

Anil Kumar Sinha vs Damodar Vally Corporation on 29 March, 2019

A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. V. Jagjit Singh, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab.)"
Jharkhand High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

M/S. Casa Grande Private Limited vs Chennai Metropolitan Development ... on 23 April, 2007

9. Under Section 49 of the Act any person not being a State Government or Central Government or local authority intends to carry out any development of any land or building shall make an application in writing to the appropriate planning authority for permission in such form and containing such particulars and accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed. The petitioner has submitted an application as mentioned supra seeking planning permission. The respondent, by its impugned communication, directed the petitioner to provide 10 meter width link road. It is contended by the petitioner that such a condition cannot be imposed as the road insisted by the respondent is neither a scheme road nor a proposed road as contemplated by the master plan for Medavakkam Village and approved by the Government. The said contention was not refuted by the respondent, however, it is argued on behalf of the respondent that under Section 49 (2) (c) of the Act, the respondent, as a planning authority, while deciding to grant or refuse such permission, keeping in mind the future development and maintenance of the planning area, impose such condition. It is relevant to mention Rule 2 (b) (ii) of Development Control Rules which says that while granting permission the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority or other Authority or person to whom the Authority had delegated its powers may impose such restrictions and conditions as may be necessary under these rules, which means that any condition imposed shall be in compliance of the said Act or Rules, hence, the argument of the learned Advocate General that it is open to the respondent to keep in mind future development of maintenance of the planning area by imposing any condition, though they are not found in the Act and Rules, cannot be accepted. In the absence of power and or without following statutory requirements thereof, the respondent, in exercise of its executive power, could not have directed the petitioner to provide 10 meter width link road. Followed (K.K. Bhalla vs. State of M.P. And others) (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 581.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 5 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document

M/S Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd vs Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory ... on 9 November, 2020

9.4 Learned counsel for the Appellant pointed out that the State Commission in a bid to improve upon the reasoning provided in the Impugned Order to disallow pass through of Additional Levy has set out elaborate arguments in addition to what has been stated in the Impugned Order and the same is impermissible in law as has been held in the various judgements of the Apex Court namely K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. (2006) 3 SCC 581 and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., (1978) 1 SCC 405 (Stated Supra).
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 39 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ravi Gautam vs State Of U.P. & Others on 18 December, 2014

12. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Administration & Anr vs. Jagjit Singh & Anr., AIR 1995 1 SCC 705; Smt Sneh Prabha vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 540; Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs. Sampuran Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1347; State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 2306; Union of India & Ors. vs. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2001 SC 1877; Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Government of NCT Delhi & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1241; Union of India & Anr. vs. International Trading Company & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 3983; M/s Anand Buttons Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 565; K.K. Bhalla vs. State of M.P. & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 898; and Maharaj Krishan Bhatt & Anr. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 24)."
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next