Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Dlf Universal Ltd. vs Greater Kailash Ii Welfare Association on 17 January, 2006

Farzanaben Alimamad Kasmani vs The District Collector Morbi on 7 May, 2021

23. It was submitted that the petitioner cannot call upon the Court in the writ­jurisdiction to carry out an inquiry as per the settled legal position. It was submitted that the petitioner has alternative remedy for redressal of the grievance raised in the petition and has the adequate remedy provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by preferring an appeal for not getting the information from the Public Information Officer. It was further submitted that the petitioner has suppressed material facts in the Page 13 of 21 Downloaded on : Fri May 07 23:38:09 IST 2021 C/SCA/11403/2020 CAV JUDGMENT petition by not disclosing discussion/negotiation between the petitioner and the respondent No.6 in August, 2020 regarding the purchase of the petitioner's land/property which eventually did not fructify. It was further submitted that the grievance raised by the petitioner falls within the ambit of the National Green Tribunal and if the petitioner has any grievance against the breach of directions or guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, the petitioner is required to approach to the Tribunal. It was pointed out that petrol pump is a public utility under the GDCR as table no.6.3 of the GDCR provides the category of uses which are permitted and at serial no.31 of the table clearly states that fueling station would come under public utility. It was pointed out that in point no.6.2 of the table, it is stated that industrial use and public utility sectors cannot be regulated on the basis of road width. It was submitted that the construction of petrol pump is in accordance with the rules and regulations and the same is done after obtaining requisite permissions from the respondent authorities. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of DLF Universal Ltd. v. Greater Kailash II Welfare Association, 127 reported in (2006) DLT 131. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden to prove that the permissions granted by the respondent authorities are without conducting proper survey and without exercising all diligence and therefore, the petition is liable to be Page 14 of 21 Downloaded on : Fri May 07 23:38:09 IST 2021 C/SCA/11403/2020 CAV JUDGMENT dismissed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Farzanaben Alimamad Kasmani vs The District Collector Morbi on 7 May, 2021

23. It was submitted that the petitioner cannot call upon the Court in the writ­jurisdiction to carry out an inquiry as per the settled legal position. It was submitted that the petitioner has alternative remedy for redressal of the grievance raised in the petition and has the adequate remedy provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by preferring an appeal for not getting the information from the Public Information Officer. It was further submitted that the petitioner has suppressed material facts in the Page 13 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Jan 15 00:51:37 IST 2022 C/SCA/11403/2020 CAV JUDGMENT petition by not disclosing discussion/negotiation between the petitioner and the respondent No.6 in August, 2020 regarding the purchase of the petitioner's land/property which eventually did not fructify. It was further submitted that the grievance raised by the petitioner falls within the ambit of the National Green Tribunal and if the petitioner has any grievance against the breach of directions or guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, the petitioner is required to approach to the Tribunal. It was pointed out that petrol pump is a public utility under the GDCR as table no.6.3 of the GDCR provides the category of uses which are permitted and at serial no.31 of the table clearly states that fueling station would come under public utility. It was pointed out that in point no.6.2 of the table, it is stated that industrial use and public utility sectors cannot be regulated on the basis of road width. It was submitted that the construction of petrol pump is in accordance with the rules and regulations and the same is done after obtaining requisite permissions from the respondent authorities. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of DLF Universal Ltd. v. Greater Kailash II Welfare Association, 127 reported in (2006) DLT 131. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden to prove that the permissions granted by the respondent authorities are without conducting proper survey and without exercising all diligence and therefore, the petition is liable to be Page 14 of 21 Downloaded on : Sat Jan 15 00:51:37 IST 2022 C/SCA/11403/2020 CAV JUDGMENT dismissed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

N.C.Bakshi And Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 21 December, 2012

7. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 relies upon W.P.(C) No. 6260/2010 Page 3 of 10 decisions in „DLF Universal Limited Vs. Greater Kailash-II Welfare Association‟ 127 (2006) DLT 131 (DB); „Oswal Fats and Oils Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly & ors.‟ (2010) 4 SCC 728 & „Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. Vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja‟ (2008) 9 SCC 31 to contend that upon collective reading of Section 255 and 256 of the Companies Act, 1956, it clearly emerges that 1/3rd of the Directors/Office Bearers can remain in office for a period of three years and infact each Director/Office Bearer in the three groups of this Association is retiring, i.e., eight office bearers in Group C every year, eight office bearers in Group B, after every two years and eight office bearers in Group A, after every three years and this is in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S Gaur - Full Document

Arvind Singhal & Ors. vs Max Therapiya Limited & Ors. on 15 October, 2014

67. The judgment of this Court titled DLF Universal Ltd. Vs. Greater Kailash II Welfare Association, 127 (2006) DLT 131, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of India. In the said judgment, it has been held that granting permission, regulating traffic etc. are all executive functions and it is ordinarily wholly inappropriate for the judiciary to encroach in the executive function.
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 3 - M Singh - Full Document

Delhi Development Authority vs Sh. Rakesh Mahajan on 16 July, 2016

It  was  also  observed  vide  the  impugned judgment  that from the statement of Sh. Such Chandhiok, Assistant Town Planner MCD Appeal No.04/13.                                                                   Page  4 of 27 dated 27.04.2010 made before the Ld. PO, Appellate Tribunal, MCD, it   was   clear   that   no   NOC   from   the   DDA   was   required   prior   to sanctioning of the layout plan in respect of the subject land, it inter alia having been observed to the effect that the area in question had already been de­notified and all the building activities were lying with the MCD and there was no requirement on the part of the MCD to obtain any NOC from the DDA and reliance was placed on the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled DLF Universal Ltd. Vs. Greater Kailash II Welfare Association 2006 II AD (Delhi) 639 and it was further observed that any objection raised by DDA suo moto  was meaningless and was of no value and the land in question was a private land exclusively belonging to the appellants and was never to be acquired, so the appellants being the full owners of the subject   property   were   competent   to   apply   for   the   sanction   of   the building plan or layout plan and that DDA had no role to intervene merely   on   the   pretext   that   it   had   prepared   a   scheme   for   the development   of   that   land   and   applied   to   the   government   for   the acquisition of the same and that government had not acceded to the request of the DDA for acquisition of the land in question for the last 23   years   despite   various   letters   and   reminders   and   it   could   be presumed that government was not interested for acquiring the same for the benefit of the  DDA.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Greater Kailash Part-Ii Welfare ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 July, 2012

M/s DLF Universal Limited being the owner of the Cinema had preferred an intra-court appeal against the said judgment, which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court, the judgment whereof is reported as DLF Universal Limited vs. Greater Kailash-II Welfare Association 127 (2006) DLT 131. The sanctions granted by the MCD for the Cinema were held to be non-assailable and were upheld and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Sunil B. Sharma & Ors. vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & ... on 4 December, 2023

"97. While on the scope of interference by the Court this Court in DLF Universal Ltd. v. Greater Kailash-II Welfare Association, 127 (2006) DLT 131 (DB) disapproved of the Single Judge directing DDA to consider afresh parking requirements for Savitri Cinema on criteria which would be applicable only to a new cinema hall, the DB was of the view that:
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Rajkumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 August, 2022

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision dated 17.01.2006 of the Division Bench of this Court in DLF Universal Ltd. v. Greater Kailash II Welfare Association reported as 2006 (88) DRJ 44 to submit that the subject land is not forming part of any development area and as such no NOC is required from the DDA. In this regard, he has also referred to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of DDA stating that the subject land has already been de-notified.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - M K Ohri - Full Document
1