Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing Kalu Ram Ahuja & Anr vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 25 August, 2008

Kalu Ram @ Kalu vs Delhi Development Authority on 18 December, 2012

It was submitted by ld. counsel for the plaintiff that initially a writ petition was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant no.1 / CS No. 530/09, Kalu Ram @ Kalu & Ors vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. : 12/27 DDA seeking the relief against the illegal demolition. It was further submitted that as such in case of filing of the writ petition seeking the relief of urgent nature, no notice u/s 53B of the Act is required as otherwise, the relief as sought in the present suit would have become infructuous. On the other hand, no submission was made by the ld. defence counsel with respect to the present issue.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kallu @ Kalu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2020

(Anand Pathak) Judge Digitally signed by RASHID KHAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT Of M P BENCH GWALIOR, RASHID KHAN postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=23377d7d214c811801fc322b576ca4ed1954237f6 324416af3985b5e9940ed42, serialNumber=111cc474a72b078dc9a89f3cb13bb668fd8e0 e91beda3cb721bbd836d768b09c, cn=RASHID KHAN Date: 2020.07.09 11:22:10 +05'30' HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 M.Cr.C. No.21151/2020 (Kallu @ Kalu and another Vs. State of M.P. and another) Rashid
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Pathak - Full Document

Haryana Urban Dev. Authority & Ors vs Orchid Infrastructure Developers ... on 27 January, 2017

31. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in Kalu Ram Ahuja & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. (2008) 10 SCC 696 in which this Court has laid down that the highest bid was rejected without assigning any reason and there was no record showing that the decision was based on rational and tangible reasons and was in public interest. In the instant case we are satisfied from the order that the reports were considered and what were the reports, has been made clear in the reply filed by the respondents which has not been controverted. In the instant case merely the bid being above the reserve price, was not a safe criteria to accept the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 104 - A Mishra - Full Document

Haryana Urban Dev. Authority vs Orchid Infrastructure Developers ... on 27 January, 2017

31. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in Kalu Ram Ahuja & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. (2008) 10 SCC 696 in which this Court has laid down that the highest bid was rejected without assigning any reason and there was no record showing that the decision was based on rational and tangible reasons and was in public interest. In the instant case we are satisfied from the order that the reports were considered and what were the reports, has been made clear in the reply filed by the respondents which has not been controverted.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A Mishra - Full Document

Ritu Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 July, 2024

31. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in Kalu Ram Ahuja & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. (2008) 10 SCC 696 in which this Court has laid down that the highest bid was rejected without assigning any reason and there was no record showing that the decision was based on rational and tangible reasons and was in public interest. In the instant case we are satisfied from the order that the reports were considered and what were the reports, has been made clear in the reply filed by the respondents which has not been controverted. In the instant case merely the bid being above the reserve price, was not a safe criteria to accept the same.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A Palli - Full Document

M.Vishnukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 June, 2022

“..... Undisputedly, the D.D.A. had taken a conscious decision to auction the plot. It is neither the pleaded case of the respondents nor any material has been produced before this Court to show that the said decision was taken by the competent authority under some mis-apprehension. It is also not in dispute that the appellants participated in the auction held on 1st June, 1988, and gave highest bid, which, as mentioned above, was rejected by the Vice-Chairman, D.D.A. The communication dated 7th July, 1988, does not make a mention of the reason which may have prompted the Vice- Chairman to reject the bid given by the appellants. No other record has been produced before the Court to show that the decision of the Vice-Chairman was based on rational and tangible reasons and was in public interest. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the decision of the concerned authority was wholly arbitrary. The learned Single https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/18 W.P.No.1091 of 2022 Judge without properly appreciating the nature of the appellants’ challenge to the rejection of their bid, dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench also committed the same error by dismissing the appeal. Therefore, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside, writ petition filed by the appellants before the High Court is allowed and the decision of the Vice- Chairman, D.D.A. to reject the bid of the appellants is quashed. The appellants are directed to deposit the amount of bid along with the interest thereon at the rate of eighteen per cent from the date of bid till the date of actual payment within a period of three months from today. Thereafter the D.D.A. shall complete all the formalities of land and hand over possession to the appellants. The needful be done within three months from the date the amount is deposited by the appellants.”
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

M.Vishnukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 June, 2022

“..... Undisputedly, the D.D.A. had taken a conscious decision to auction the plot. It is neither the pleaded case of the respondents nor any material has been produced before this Court to show that the said decision was taken by the competent authority under some mis-apprehension. It is also not in dispute that the appellants participated in the auction held on 1st June, 1988, and gave highest bid, which, as mentioned above, was rejected by the Vice-Chairman, D.D.A. The communication dated 7th July, 1988, does not make a mention of the reason which may have prompted the Vice- Chairman to reject the bid given by the appellants. No other record has been produced before the Court to show that the decision of the Vice-Chairman was based on rational and tangible reasons and was in public interest. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the decision of the concerned authority was wholly arbitrary. The learned Single https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/18 W.P.No.1091 of 2022 Judge without properly appreciating the nature of the appellants’ challenge to the rejection of their bid, dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench also committed the same error by dismissing the appeal. Therefore, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside, writ petition filed by the appellants before the High Court is allowed and the decision of the Vice- Chairman, D.D.A. to reject the bid of the appellants is quashed. The appellants are directed to deposit the amount of bid along with the interest thereon at the rate of eighteen per cent from the date of bid till the date of actual payment within a period of three months from today. Thereafter the D.D.A. shall complete all the formalities of land and hand over possession to the appellants. The needful be done within three months from the date the amount is deposited by the appellants.”
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

Lalit Kumar And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 December, 2013

"5. Undisputedly, DDA had taken a conscious decision to auction the plot. It is neither the pleaded case of the respondents nor has any material been produced before this Court to show that the said decision was taken by the competent authority under some misapprehension. It is also not in dispute that the appellants participated in the auction held on 21-6-1988, and gave the highest bid, which, as mentioned above, was rejected by the Vice- Chairman, DDA. The communication dated 7-7-1988 does not make a mention of the reason which may have prompted the Vice- Chairman to reject the bid given by the appellants. No other record has been produced before the Court to show that the decision of the Vice-Chairman was based on rational and tangible reasons and was in public interest. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the decision of the authority concerned was wholly arbitrary. The learned Single Judge without properly appreciating the nature of the appellants' challenge to the rejection of their bid, dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench also committed the same error by dismissing the appeal. Therefore, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - S K Mittal - Full Document

Pitam Singh vs Greater Noida Development Authority ... on 18 December, 2014

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kalu Ram and another v. Delhi Development Authority and another, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 696. In the said case, the highest bid in an auction of plot by the Delhi Development Authority has been rejected without any reason. The Apex Court has quashed the order of the Delhi Development Authority on the ground that the highest bid has been rejected without assigning any reason.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document

Yugam Dutt Sharma vs Greater Noida Development Auth. Thru' ... on 18 December, 2014

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kalu Ram and another v. Delhi Development Authority and another, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 696. In the said case, the highest bid in an auction of plot by the Delhi Development Authority has been rejected without any reason. The Apex Court has quashed the order of the Delhi Development Authority on the ground that the highest bid has been rejected without assigning any reason.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next