Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 137 (1.17 seconds)
Documents citing Hira Tikkoo vs Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors on 13 April, 2004

Neelkanth Infratech Co vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 3 May, 2023

35. Now coming to the decisions as relied on behalf of the parties, Mr. Tulzapurkar has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hira Tikkoo vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors. (supra). We find that the reliance on such decision to be well-founded. The Supreme Court in such decision has emphasized on the rule of reasonableness and fairness to be adhered by the statutory authority, in the context of parties, who for no fault on their part were deprived of original plots alloted to them, and in fact it is recognized that they would be entitled to refund of the amount. The relevant observations in that regard can be noted:
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Shelton Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Urban ... on 3 May, 2023

35. Now coming to the decisions as relied on behalf of the parties, Mr. Tulzapurkar has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hira Tikkoo vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors. (supra). We find that the reliance on such decision to be well-founded. The Supreme Court in such decision has emphasized on the rule of reasonableness and fairness to be adhered by the statutory authority, in the context of parties, who for no fault on their part were deprived of original plots alloted to them, and in fact it is recognized that they would be entitled to refund of the amount. The relevant observations in that regard can be noted:
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

M/S. Juhi Habitant Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 May, 2023

35. Now coming to the decisions as relied on behalf of the parties, Mr. Tulzapurkar has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hira Tikkoo vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors. (supra). We find that the reliance on such decision to be well-founded. The Supreme Court in such decision has emphasized on the rule of reasonableness and fairness to be adhered by the statutory authority, in the context of parties, who for no fault on their part were deprived of original plots alloted to them, and in fact it is recognized that they would be entitled to refund of the amount. The relevant observations in that regard can be noted:
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Oberoi Constructions Private Limited A ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Etc. Etc. on 24 March, 2008

Page 1040 Pricesly such an argument was canvassed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in Hira Tikko v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Ors. (supra) the same has been turned down. For these very reasons even this argument must fail. The State Government's Officers' lapses and inaction or acts of omission and commission cannot have any impact on the interpretation of the provisions in question. Some authority or the officer in the State Government holding any view is of no consequence and relevance in such matters. Ultimately, interpretation of legal provision or statute is a duty of the Court. That duty has to be performed by the Court of law. The plain letter of law, clear and unambiguous provision cannot be brushed aside or interpreted contrary to the language by such a backdoor process. The principle of contemporena exposito cannot be pressed into service in such cases.
Bombay High Court Cites 115 - Cited by 122 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

K. Srinivas vs The State Of Telangana on 4 July, 2023

10. Taking into consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also the law laid down by the Apex Court (1) judgment dated 19.11.1996 of the Apex Court in Ramniklal N.Bhutta and another v State of Maharastra and others reported in 1997 (1) SCC 134, (2) Judgment dated 13.04.2004 of the Apex Court in Hira Tikkoo v Union Territory, Chandigarh and others reported in (2004) 6 SCC 765, (3) judgment dated 05.05.2010 of the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy and others v Banagalore Development Authority and Others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129, (4) judgment dated 14.05.2015 of the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2015 (7) SCC 21 and (5) judgment dated 01.11.2004 of the Supreme Court in Friends Colony Development Committee v State of 25 Orissa and others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 733 (referred to and extracted above) the writ petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Authority as provided for under Section 64 and 69 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013, and to raise all the issues raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition before the competent Authority. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Telangana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Nanda - Full Document

Gami And Satyam Ventures Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra The Urban ... on 3 May, 2023

35. Now coming to the decisions as relied on behalf of the parties, Mr. Tulzapurkar has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hira Tikkoo vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors. (supra). We find that the reliance on such decision to be well-founded. The Supreme Court in such decision has emphasized on the rule of reasonableness and fairness to be adhered by the statutory authority, in the context of parties, who for no fault on their part were deprived of original plots alloted to them, and in fact it is recognized that they would be entitled to refund of the amount. The relevant observations in that regard can be noted:
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

East India Hotel Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 10 October, 2013

42. This brings us to the fourth question of any right vested created in the Appellants in equity, i.e. through the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, which could injunct the Government. The Appellants note that over the passage of 13 years, equities had been created in its favour, as also the fact that the representation made by the Land and Development Officer through the letter of allotment on 27th June, 1995, precludes the Government from back-tracking on that promise or assurance:"Accordingly, I am directed to convey the sanction of the President to the construction and commissioning of the Hotel by the East India Hotel Ltd.,/Centurion Hotels Ltd. on the aforesaid plot of land subject to compliance of the terms and conditions as enumerated in the license LPA 342/2008 Page 34 agreement dated 24.07.92 (copy enclosed) on usual terms and conditions which shall, inter alia, includes (sic) the following ..." For this, the Single Judge has rightly noted that the doctrine cannot create an expectation as against a public authority acting in public interest. The Supreme Court noted in Hira Tikoo v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (2004) 6 SCC 765 that:
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

The City Industrial And Development ... vs Shelton Infrastructure Pvt Ltd on 3 May, 2023

35. Now coming to the decisions as relied on behalf of the parties, Mr. Tulzapurkar has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hira Tikkoo vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors. (supra). We find that the reliance on such decision to be well-founded. The Supreme Court in such decision has emphasized on the rule of reasonableness and fairness to be adhered by the statutory authority, in the context of parties, who for no fault on their part were deprived of original plots alloted to them, and in fact it is recognized that they would be entitled to refund of the amount. The relevant observations in that regard can be noted:
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Shree Sanyeeji Ispat Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 7 October, 2005

95. The decision reached in Hira Tikkoo v. Union Territory of Chandigarh , relied upon by the respondents, is also of no assistance to the respondents inasmuch as no larger public interest enabling the Government to resile from the promises made by it could be shown. In fact, the averments made in the writ petition, which have remained wholly undisputed, is that the petitioner-company has been granted transport subsidy as well as subsidy on electricity. If the larger public interest required the Government to resile from its commitment, I fail to see as to how the Government continued to grant transport and electricity subsidised. In fact, no record has been produced by the contesting respondents to even remotely indicate that any exercise was carried out to determine if the public interest required withdrawal of the incentives given under the relevant industrial policy. Far from this, there is no decision from the Government in this regard and it is merely the Department of Finance, Government of Assam, which has, while issuing the impugned notification, withdrawn the incentives. Sadly enough, for withdrawing the exemption, which was promised under the notification, dated April 26, 1994 aforementioned, in terms of the Industrial Policy of 1991, even the Department of Finance has not placed any materials justifying the omission to issue the requisite notification.
Gauhati High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 2 - I Ansari - Full Document

Godrej Properties Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Urban ... on 3 May, 2023

35. Now coming to the decisions as relied on behalf of the parties, Mr. Tulzapurkar has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hira Tikkoo vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors. (supra). We find that the reliance on such decision to be well-founded. The Supreme Court in such decision has emphasized on the rule of reasonableness and fairness to be adhered by the statutory authority, in the context of parties, who for no fault on their part were deprived of original plots alloted to them, and in fact it is recognized that they would be entitled to refund of the amount. The relevant observations in that regard can be noted:
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next