Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 59 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Santosh Kumar & Ors vs Central Warehousing Corporation & Anr on 11 March, 1986

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. vs Rangaswamy And Others on 28 April, 1989

In so far as the maintainability of the writ petitions is concerned, apart from the decision of the Supreme Court in Samosh Kumar's case , we find that this Court in Issardas S. Lulla v. Smt. Hari, considered this question directly and held that such writ petitions are not maintainable. In that case, a writ petition was filed to quash the order of appointment of a Receiver in a civil suit on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. In those circumstances, the Bench of this Court decided the following principles :--
Madras High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - S Mohan - Full Document

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., ... vs Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition And ... on 7 April, 1989

99 L.W. 221.1986 Writ L.R. 146, the principles laid down in Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Devasthanam v. Ambalavana Sannadhi have been referred to with approval It would, therefore, follow that without in any manner disapproving the ratio of the decision in Sri. Kanyaka Parameswari Devasthanam v. Ambalavana Sannadhi , the Division Bench, Indian Rare Earths Limited v. The Sub Collector, etc., 99 L W 221 :1986 Writ L.R. 146, has proceeded to consider the maintainability of the writ petition on the other grounds referred to earlier, which are not sustainable, especially in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar v. Central Warehousing Corporation AIR 1986 S C 1164.
Madras High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, A ... vs Rangaswamy And Ors. on 28 April, 1989

Insofar as the maintainability of the writ petitions is concerned, apart from the decision of the Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar's case we find that this Court in Issardas S. Lulla v. Smt. Hari considered this question directly and held that such writ petitions are not maintainable. In that case, a writ petition was filed to quash the order of appointment of a Receiver in a civil suit on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. In those circumstances, the Bench of this Court decided the following principles:
Madras High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Dariapur Patel Co-Op. Housing Society vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 18 August, 1988

14. Thus, from the foregoing discussions made by us, the dropping of me land acquisition proceedings by the Government under Section 48 cannot be the subject matter in a proceeding under Article. 226 of the Constitution. Such dropping of the proceedings by the Government cannot be questioned since the party has remedy to claim damages under Section 48(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. As far as the acquiring body is concerned, it has absolutely no right to question the land acquisition proceedings as held in the decision in the case of Santosh Kumar and Ors. v. Central Warehousing Corporation and Anr. .
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M.P. Grih Nirman Mandal And Anr. vs Umashankar Kunjilal And Anr. on 15 December, 1989

4. A preliminary objection was raised by the land owners/respondents that the appeals are incompetent, as in view of the provisions of section 50(2) of the Act, a local authority or a company concerned cannot file an appeal and, as the appeals were incompetent, transposition of the State of M. P. as appellant No. 2 beyond the period of limitation for filing an appeal will not make the appeals competent. Learned counsel Sarvashri Swamisaran, J. P. Sharma and K. K. Lahoti, for the land owners, appearing in different appeals, placed reliance on Santosh Kumar v. Central Warehousing Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 1164; a Single Bench decision of this Court in F. A. No. 11 1964, decided on 4-11-1966, Municipal Committee, Mungaoli v. Babulal short-noted in 1987 MPLJ as Note 54, Division Bench decision in Municipal Council, Piparia v. State of M. P., 1965 MPLJ 961 - AIR 1967 MP 136; a decision on difference of opinion in case of M. P. State Co.-Op.O.G. Federation v. State of M. P., 1987 MPLJ 535 = AIR 1987 M.P. 174 and Gautamlal v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1970 Guj. 81.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) Rep. By General ... vs Land Acquisition Officer And Revenue ... on 21 October, 1997

"In Santosh Kumar v. Central Warehousing Corporation, it was held that the company or the local authority at whose instance the acquisition is made is not entitled to challenge the determination of compensation except on the ground of fraud, corruption or collusion and therefore, it is in the interest of the person whose land has been acquired that the necessary intimation should be given to the acquiring body at the earliest so that it may not raise the plea of fraud, corruption or collusion after conclusion of the proceedings either before the Court or in appeal. But the obligation of the Collector or the Court to issue notice shall be prospective in operation. That is it shall apply to only those proceedings which are initiated hereinafter or are pending before the Collector or Court. It shall not be available in appeals pending against the order passed in reference in High Court or this Court except in those rare cases where the local authority is able to establish that it had no knowledge about the proceedings at any stage and the proceedings were vitiated because of fraud or collusion."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs B. J. Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ... on 14 March, 2024

28. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its judgment of Satish Kumar Gupta V. State of Haryana (supra), has once again reiterated this position by making a reference to Santosh Kumar (supra), namely, that the Award of the Collector could not be challenged by the local authority in a writ petition, except on the ground of fraud, corruption or collusion.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - M M Sathaye - Full Document

Central Railway And Anr. vs Ramaiya Chhokodi Ram And Ors. on 24 August, 1993

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, based on Supreme Court decision in Santosh Kumar and Ors. v. Central Warehousing Corporation and Anr., AIR 1986 SC 1164, that the Collector, who had appeared and participated in the reference proceedings was the agent of the party for whom the acquisition had been made, need not detain us, in view of other decisions of the Supreme Court, which recognise the right of the person interested to appear and contest the claim. The appearance of the Collector, in the context aforesaid, cannot be accepted as sufficient compliance of the aforesaid statutory provision.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next