Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Chander vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 29 July, 2005

(Through Ld. Counsel Sh.I.S. Dahiya ) vs Union Of India on 25 January, 2008

The counsel for the LR of the deceased 10 petitioner, in support of his arguements, has relied upon the judgment dt. 29.07.2005 in RFA No.360 of 2001 reported in the case of Chander Vs UOI & Anr. 122 (2005) DLT 517 (FB). The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid judgment considered at length the distinction between inviting order of court and court making order of its own. The Hon'ble High Court held that :
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ajit Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India on 28 April, 2008

14 Now, let us further examine whether the petitioners are entitled to interest for the stay period. On 31.10.1983, the counsel for the petitioners gave a separate statement as discussed above to the effect that the claimants will not claim interest during the period of stay. Upon the statement of the counsel for the petitioners, the proceedings of this reference were stayed sine­die on 31.10.1983 with the directions that the petitioners will not be entitled to interest during the period of stay. The counsel for the petitioners has argued that on 31.10.1983, no petitioner was present for giving the statement that the petitoners shall not claim the interest for the stay period. The counsel for the petitioners, in support of his arguements, has relied upon the judgment dt. 29.07.2005 in RFA No.360 of 2001 reported in the case of Chander Vs UOI & Anr. 122 (2005) DLT 517 (FB). The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid judgment considered at length the distinction between inviting order of court and court making order of its own. The Hon'ble High Court held that :
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

( Through The Ld. Counsel Sh.Deepak ... vs Union Of India on 29 April, 2008

Thus, my decision is also supported with the aforesaid judgment dt. 10.09.1984 in RFA no.161/83 which is mark-A. Therefore, the market value of the acquired land as mentioned in the statement U/s 19 of 14 the LA Act is fixed @ Rs.30,000/- per bigha as on the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act i.e. 16.10.1980. The petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation of the land in question. 16 Let us further examine whether the petitioner is entitled to interest for the stay period. Vide order dt. 30.11.1982 of the Ld. Predecessor Court, the proceeding of this reference petition was stayed sine die since the reference u/sec. 30-31 of the LA Act was pending. While adjourning this reference sine die, the counsel for the parties also present and it was directed by the Ld. Predecessor Court that the claimants will not be entitled to interest for the period of stay. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that on 30.11.1982, the petitioner was not present for giving the statement that the petitoner shall not claim the interest for the stay period. However, the counsel for the respondents have also argued that since the counsel for the parties were present at the time of passing the order on 30.11.1982, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to interest for the stay period. The counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguements, has referred the judgment dt. 29.07.2005 in RFA No.360 of 2001 reported in the case of Chander Vs UOI & Anr. 122 (2005) DLT 517 (FB). The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid judgment considered at length the distinction between inviting order of court and court making order of its own. The Hon'ble High Court held that:
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

( Through The Ld. Counsel Sh.Deepak ... vs Union Of India on 29 April, 2008

16 Let us further examine whether the petitioner is entitled to interest for the stay period. Vide order dt. 30.11.1982 of the Ld. Predecessor Court, the proceeding of this reference petition was stayed sine die since the reference u/sec. 30-31 of the LA Act was pending. While adjourning this reference sine die, the counsel for the parties also present and it was directed by the Ld. Predecessor Court that the claimants will not be entitled to interest for the period of stay. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that on 30.11.1982, the petitioner was not present for giving the statement that the petitoner shall not claim the interest for the stay period. However, the counsel for the respondents have also argued that since the counsel for the parties were present at the time of passing the order on 30.11.1982, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to interest for the stay period. The counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguements, has referred the judgment dt. 29.07.2005 in RFA No.360 of 2001 reported in the case of Chander Vs UOI & Anr. 122 (2005) DLT 517 (FB). The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid judgment considered at length the distinction between inviting order of court and court making order of its own. The Hon'ble High Court held that:
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Hari Ram & Anr. on 13 January, 2011

5. As far as the challenge of the appellant to the grant of interest to respondent No.1 for the period during which the reference proceedings had remained stayed is concerned, this Court finds no merit in it in view of the LA APP. NO. 1076/2008 Page 3 of 5 decision of full bench of this Court in "Chander Vs. Union of India & Anr".: 2005 VII AD (Delhi) 125. In that case it was held that where reference proceedings are stayed sine die by an order of the Court to await the decision of some proceedings under Sections 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act the land owner is entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation in case of his succeeding in the reference proceedings ultimately. In the present case, since the respondent No.1 had not made any request for staying the reference proceedings because of the pendency of the reference under Sections 30-31 and the Reference Court on its own had stayed the proceedings the respondent No.1 could not be denied the benefit of interest on the enhanced compensation for the period the proceedings had remained stayed.. Therefore, the appellant's challenge against the grant of interest on the enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court is liable to be rejected.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P K Bhasin - Full Document

Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Thru Lrs. vs Union Of India on 8 February, 2011

That application also came to be dismissed in default and the same was restored on 4 th March, 1982. The learned Reference Court rejected payment of interest for the period from 16th April, 1970, when the writ petition of the appellants had been rejected, to 4th March, 1982. During the course of hearing of the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he was not pressing his claim of interest for the period from 16th April, 1970 to 12th November, 1979 when application for revival of the reference proceedings was moved and was now confining his claim of interest for the period from 13th November, 1979 to 4th March, 1982. Responding to this statement of learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Sanjay Poddar submitted that since the appellants are giving up their claim of interest on the enhanced compensation for the period from 16th April, 1970 to 12th RFA No. 303/1988 Page 5 of 7 November, 1979 he has no objection if they are granted interest for the subsequent period to which they would be entitled in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Chander vs. Union of India and Another" , reported as 2005VII AD (DELHI) 125 and that would also put an end to this long pending litigation.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - P K Bhasin - Full Document
1   2 Next