Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 237 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing Ramjas Foundation And Ors vs U.O.I. And Ors on 13 November, 1992

Ramjas Foundation & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 November, 2010

In our view, the appellants are not entitled to any relief because despite strong indictment by this Court in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, they deliberately refrained from mentioning details of the cases 25 instituted by them in respect of the land situated at Sadhora Khurd and rejection of their claim for exemption under clause (d) of notification dated 13.11.1959 by the High Court and this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 314 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Master Singham Through Natural ... vs Directorate Of Education & Anr. on 5 December, 2023

"44. The appellants have not approached the court with clean hands, and are therefore, not entitled for any relief. Whenever a person approaches a court of equity, in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, it is expected that he will approach the said court not only with clean hands but also with a clean mind, a clean heart and clean objectives. Thus, he who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by causing loss or injury to another. (Vide Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India [1993 Supp (2) SCC 20 : AIR 1993 SC 852] , Noorduddin v. K.L. Anand [(1995) 1 SCC 242] and Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 134 : AIR 1997 SC 1236] .)
Delhi High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - P K Kaurav - Full Document

Delhi Administration And Ors vs Madan Lal Nangia And Ors on 8 October, 2003

Mr. Rohtagi submitted that the High Court has thus negatived the challenge to the acquisition proceedings on grounds of delay and latches and yet thereafter given relief to the Respondents. He submitted that in view of the High Court's own findings, on delay and latches, the High Court should have dismissed this Writ Petition also. Mr. Rohtagi relied upon the case of Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India reported in (1993) Supp. (2) SCC 20, wherein this Court has held that if there is no explanation for the delay or the explanation is unacceptable then the Writ Petition challenging acquisition proceedings must be dismissed on grounds of delay and latches.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 17 - S N Variava - Full Document

Pauline Ratchaganathan And Ors. vs Land Acquisition Officer And ... on 15 December, 1994

12. In reply to this, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case, on account of order of stay granted in the first writ petition, the petitioners continued to be in possession. So long as possession is not taken by the Government the property does not vest in the Government. My attention is drawn to Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act which provides that when the Collector has made an award under Section 11 of the Act, he may take possession of the land which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Learned Counsel contends that unless the property has vested in the Government, the delay in filing the writ petition cannot be put against the writ petitioner and the writ petitions cannot be thrown out on that ground. I am unable to accept this contention in view of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in The Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, 1993 L.A.C.C. 327. There, the award had not been passed and possession had not been taken. Yet the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there was inordinate delay in filing the same and it was not maintainable. Hence, the plea on the ground that the property has not been vested in the Government is not available to the petitioners.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shri M.S. Dewan vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 April, 2008

In the light of the above settled legal position and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Vishwas Nagar Evacuees Plot Purchasers Association and Anr. v. Under Secretary, Delhi Administration and Ors. , Ramjas Foundation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1993 Suppl (2) SCC 20, M. Ramalinga Thevar v. State of T.N. and Ors. and Prem Chand Gupta and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. WP (C) No. 1131/1983 disposed on 20th December, 2007, we have no hesitation in holding that the present writ petition is barred by unexplained delay and laches and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - T S Thakur - Full Document

The Bangalore Development Authority vs C.B.C.I. Society For Medical Education on 9 March, 1998

"It is true that this Court has take note of delay on the part of the petitioners concerned in invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court or of this Court for quashing the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that the proceedings for acquisition of the lands in question have remained pending for more than a decade, in the case of AFLATOON v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI and RAMJAS FOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA. According to us, the question of delay in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or of this Court under Article 32, has to be considered along with the inaction on the part of the authorities, who had to perform their statutory duties. Can the statutory authority take a plea that although it has not performed its duty within a reasonable time, but it is of no consequence because the person, who has been wronged or deprived of his right, has also not invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court or of this Court for a suitable writ or direction to grant the relief considered appropriate in the circumstances? The authorities are enjoined by the statute concerned to perform their duties within a reasonable time, and as such they are answerable to the Court why such duties have not been performed by them, which has . caused injury to claimants. By not questioning, the validity of the acquisition proceedings for a long time since the declarations were made under Section 6, the relief of quashing the acquisition proceedings has become inappropriate, because in the meantime, the lands notified have been developed and put to public use. The lands are being utilised to provide shelter to thousands and to implement the scheme of a planned city, which is a must in the present setup. The outweighing public interest has to be given due weight. That is why this Court has been resisting attempts on the part of the landholders, seeking quashing of the acquisition proceedings on ground of delay in completion of such proceedings. But, can the respondents be not directed to compensate the petitioners, who were small cultivators holding lands within the ceiling limit in and around Delhi, for the injury caused to them, not by the provisions of the Act. but because of the non-exercise of the power by the authorities under the Act within a reasonable time?"
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - S R Bannurmath - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next