Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs Manilal Gordhandas & Ors. Etc. Etc on 11 September, 1996

Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Gujarat on 24 November, 2000

From reading the judgment as a whole, in the facts set out in the said decision, we do not find that the contention as canvassed before us, on the combined effect of Section 20 and 21, in the manner as is being urged before us, arose in the case of Manilal Gordhandas (supra). To identify the distinguishing features of that case, a few relevant facts considered therein be taken note.
Gujarat High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 4 - D M Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Bhikhubhai Vitthalbhai Patel And 26 ... vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 11 August, 2005

12.3 Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Manilal Gordhandas, wherein in para 14, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that to prepare a scheme for the development of an urban agglomeration in the present days is a very complex issue and any development authority as well as the State Government which is the sanctioning authority has to apply its mind to the details of such development plans.
Gujarat High Court Cites 72 - Cited by 6 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Her Highness Shantadevi Pratapsinh Rao ... vs Savjibhai H. Patel And Ors. on 15 June, 1998

In Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Manilal Gordhandas and Ors. it was noticed that the Corporation had submitted the development plan to the State Government for sanction on 15th January 1976 and on 19th June 1976, the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 was enacted which came into force on 1-2-1978 and the Bombay Town Planning Act was repealed since that date and simultaneously, in exercise of the powers under Section 22, the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority was constituted. In para 11 of the judgment, it was observed by the Supreme Court as under (at Page No. 588 of GLR):
Gujarat High Court Cites 98 - Cited by 4 - R M Doshit - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Arvind Khanna on 17 October, 2019

24. Learned senior counsel Sri Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the respondent, in support of his argument, relied on the judgment of this Court, in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Manilal Gordhandas and Ors.1 Learned senior counsel also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Mohit Alias Sonu and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 1004 - R S Reddy - Full Document

Bhavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 3 December, 2002

The decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority's case (supra), in our opinion, has again no application to the fact of the present case. The fact of the matter therein was completely different. The Gujarat Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, which is now in operation in the State of Gujarat, came into force from 30th November, 1978, prior to which the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 was applicable to the State of Gujarat. Prior to coming into force of the Gujarat Act, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation submitted the development plan on 15th January, 1976 which came to be sanctioned by the State Government on 12th August, 1983. It was held by this Court that the draft development plan submitted by the Corporation on 15th January, 1976, could not have been sanctioned under the provisions of the Gujarat Act on 12th August, 1983 ignoring the fact that meanwhile a comprehensive draft development plan had been prepared and submitted by the Corporation on 23rd July, 1981 which also came to be sanctioned on 2nd November, 1986 and which included the areas covered by the earlier illegally sanctioned plan on 12th August, 1983. In the aforementioned peculiar facts, the question arose as to from which date the period of ten years had to be reckoned for application of Section 20(2) of the Act. This Court answered the aforementioned question in the following terms :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 919 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Liyakatbhai Usufbhai Sikarwala & 6 vs Town Planning Officer & 2 on 18 February, 2014

5. Learned advocate Shri Qureshi also submitted that had an Page 3 of 14 C/SCA/8479/1997 JUDGMENT opportunity been given to raise the objections, they could have raised the objections to point out that the members of the Association are doing the work/business and therefore there was no need for the proposed construction including the swimming pool, etc. and no public interest could be served. He has also stated that even assuming that notice under sec. 68 is served, it has to be by AUDA and not by the Corporation as the Corporation is not the implementing authority. He submitted that the provisions of sec. 23(2) were amended in 1995, whereas the notice under sec. 68 were issued in 1990, where the Municipal Corporation could not be the authority and was not empowered for implementation and therefore the present petition may be allowed. Learned advocate Shri Qureshi also submitted that though the notice is said to have been issued in 1990, till 1997 no steps were taken and therefore if there is a delay, the scheme cannot be implemented as it is required to be implemented within a prescribed period. He also submitted that earlier Special Civil Application No. 5079 of 1990 was filed under the ULC Act and it has an overriding effect and stay was operating and therefore also it could not have been implemented. He has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Manilal Gordhandas and ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 2130 (para 16). He has also referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Kishanbhai Hargovandas Patel & anr. v. State of Gujarat & ors., reported in 2010(4) GLR 2867.
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R H Shukla - Full Document

Madhusudan Mondal And Others vs Union Of Inida And Others on 28 February, 2017

The onus to establish that the respondents acted with ulterior motive is entirely on the petitioners, as held by the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. Monilal Gordhandas, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2804. In respect of the petitioners have failed miserably. There is nothing even to suggest, far less establishing, that the respondents had any motive behind declaring the petitioners medically unfit.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Chakrabarti - Full Document

Sumit Kumar Giri vs Union Of Inida And Others on 28 February, 2017

The onus to establish that the respondents acted with ulterior motive is entirely on the petitioners, as held by the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. Monilal Gordhandas, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2804. Here the petitioners have failed miserably. There is nothing even to suggest, far less establishing, that the respondents had any motive behind declaring the petitioner medically unfit.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Chakrabarti - Full Document

Mukul Sahoo And Others vs Union Of Inida And Others on 28 February, 2017

The onus to establish that the respondents acted with ulterior motive is entirely on the petitioners, as held by the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. Monilal Gordhandas, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2804. Here the petitioners have failed miserably. There is nothing even to suggest, far less establishing, that the respondents had any motive behind declaring the petitioners medically unfit.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Chakrabarti - Full Document
1   2 Next