Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (1.53 seconds)
Documents citing Delhi Development Authority And Anr vs Uee Electrical Engg. (P) Ltd. And Anr on 19 March, 2004

M/S. Mspl Gases Limited vs M/S. Steel Authority Of India Limited on 1 December, 2008

22. In so far as the malafides alleged by the appellant are concerned, it is to be kept in mind that the burden of establishing malafide is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of malafides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. Of course, it is not necessary that such malafide to be established only by direct evidence. The Court has to find out as to whether the said authority left out relevant factors or taken into account irrelevant factors. Even the decision could be one of many choices open to the authority to decide upon the choice and not for the Court to substitute its view. Followed (Delhi Development Authority vs. UEE Electricals Engineering 2004 11 SCC 213 and Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd vs. Airports Authority of India and others (2006) 10 SCC 1.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document

M/S Sabharwal Medicos Pvt Ltd Through ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 September, 2013

191; Mekaster Trading Corporation Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2003 VII AD (Delhi) 161 and whereas the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Shoghi Communications Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr, (supra); Kaveri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors. case (supra); Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. & Anr. case (supra); DDA & Anr. Vs. UEE Electricals Engg. (P) Ltd. & Anr. (supra); Whale Stationery Products Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. 137 (2007) DLT 516.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - V K Jain - Full Document

S.K. Chaudhary vs Union Of India on 22 September, 2006

18. While considering challenge to administrative decision, the Courts will not interfere as if they are sitting in appeal over the decision. The administrative action is subject to judicial review on the following grounds namely the procedure adopted is illegal, irrational or impropriety. The discussion made above makes it clear that there is no lack of fairness in the procedure adopted by the respondents/department or there is any illegality, in such case, interference of this Court is not warranted as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in (Delhi Development Authority v. UEE Electricals Engg. (P) Ltd.,) (2004) 11 SCC 213 mentioned supra.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 6 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document

Sanjay Chouhan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2021

[See (2006) 2 SCC 1 & 165 (Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India), (2004) 4 SCC 714 (State of U.P. vs. Johri Lal), (2004) 11 SCC 213 & 218 (Delhi Development Authority vs. UEE Electricals Engg. (P) Ltd., (2005) 10 SCC 84 & 95 (Damoh 11 W.P. No.21231/2017 Sagar Panna Rural Regional Bank vs. Munna Lal Jain), (2005) 5 SCC 181 (State of NCT of Delhi vs. Sanjeev) and (2006) 8 SCC 200 (Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel)]
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 3 - S Paul - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next