Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 132 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Delhi Development Authority vs Ashok Kumar Behal And Ors on 20 August, 2002

Yashpal Madan And Ors. vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. [Along With ... on 15 May, 2007

It is clear that if the petitioners had challenged the price enhancement from Rs. 5,400/- to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre on the ground that it was related to any of these factors, then the writ petitions could not have been entertained in view of the various decisions referred to by Ms Salwan and particularly the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Sheelawanti (supra) and the decision of Supreme Court in the case of DDA v. Ashok Kumar Behl (supra). But, as revealed by the respondents, the price hike from Rs. 5,400/- per sq. metre to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre was not on account of any of the aforesaid factors, but on account of the policy of charging 20% unearned increase annually. In these circumstances, the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent would not come in the way of the petitioners. The writ petitions would be maintainable and the respondents would have to justify as to on what basis the enhancement of the prices from Rs. 5,400/- to Rs. 7,776/- per sq. metre has been done. Merely citing a policy of 20% unearned increase annually would not be sufficient because that is not the cost of acquisition, nor is it the cost of construction/development, nor is it related to the location of flatted factories complexes/industrial areas, nor is there any other input. There are no other factors which have to be taken into account for arriving at the land price as indicated under the relocation scheme.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Delhi Development Authority vs Sh. Ashok Kumar on 27 July, 2012

13 The defendant had filed the policy and survey report as Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2. As is also observed by Ld. Trial Court, Ex.DW1/2 was clearly an annexure to some other documents, which had never been produced and the exhibit was mentioning nothing thereon, still it showed that the name of the plaintiff was clearly reflected therein but only that the corresponding columns were left blank. Also DW1 stated in his examination in chief that the plaintiff was not found at the site because DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar jhuggi was locked. All this would suggest, as also rightly concluded by Ld. Trial Court that the plaintiff was in possession of the jhuggi at the time of the survey.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.G Housing Board vs Radheshyam Sahu on 29 March, 2016

The question was again considered by Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Kartar Singh (supra) and after taking into consideration, the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar Bahl & ors., 2002 (7) SCC 135 and also other pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the subject, including Premji Bhai Parmod & Ors. Vs. DDA, 1980 (2) SCC 129, it was held that it is by now settled law that Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of 'pricing', it also does not amount to 'consumer dispute' as per law laid down by the National Commission, in earlier cases.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.G Housing Board vs Smt. Gunish Devi on 29 March, 2016

The question was again considered by Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Kartar Singh (supra) and after taking into consideration, the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar Bahl & ors., 2002 (7) SCC 135 and also other pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the subject, including Premji Bhai Parmod & Ors. Vs. DDA, 1980 (2) SCC 129, it was held that it is by now settled law that Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of 'pricing', it also does not amount to 'consumer dispute' as per law laid down by the National Commission, in earlier cases.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Tiwari vs C.G.Grih Nirman Mandal on 29 March, 2016

The question was again considered by Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Kartar Singh (supra) and after taking into consideration, the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar Bahl & ors., 2002 (7) SCC 135 and also other pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the subject, including Premji Bhai Parmod & Ors. Vs. DDA, 1980 (2) SCC 129, it was held that it is by now settled law that Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of 'pricing', it also does not amount to 'consumer dispute' as per law laid down by the National Commission, in earlier cases.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.G Housing Board vs Sunil Tiwari on 29 March, 2016

The question was again considered by Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Kartar Singh (supra) and after taking into consideration, the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar Bahl & ors., 2002 (7) SCC 135 and also other pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the subject, including Premji Bhai Parmod & Ors. Vs. DDA, 1980 (2) SCC 129, it was held that it is by now settled law that Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of 'pricing', it also does not amount to 'consumer dispute' as per law laid down by the National Commission, in earlier cases.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.G Housing Board vs Smt. Rashmi Dubey on 29 March, 2016

The question was again considered by Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Kartar Singh (supra) and after taking into consideration, the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar Bahl & ors., 2002 (7) SCC 135 and also other pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the subject, including Premji Bhai Parmod & Ors. Vs. DDA, 1980 (2) SCC 129, it was held that it is by now settled law that Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of 'pricing', it also does not amount to 'consumer dispute' as per law laid down by the National Commission, in earlier cases.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Rashmi Dubey vs C.G.Grih Nirman Mandal on 29 March, 2016

The question was again considered by Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Kartar Singh (supra) and after taking into consideration, the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar Bahl & ors., 2002 (7) SCC 135 and also other pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the subject, including Premji Bhai Parmod & Ors. Vs. DDA, 1980 (2) SCC 129, it was held that it is by now settled law that Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of 'pricing', it also does not amount to 'consumer dispute' as per law laid down by the National Commission, in earlier cases.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sampada Adhikari C.G Housing Board vs Smt. Mittali Mitra on 29 March, 2016

The question was again considered by Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Kartar Singh (supra) and after taking into consideration, the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar Bahl & ors., 2002 (7) SCC 135 and also other pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the subject, including Premji Bhai Parmod & Ors. Vs. DDA, 1980 (2) SCC 129, it was held that it is by now settled law that Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of 'pricing', it also does not amount to 'consumer dispute' as per law laid down by the National Commission, in earlier cases.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next