Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 196 (1.46 seconds)
Documents citing Delhi Development Authority vs Shri Bhola Nath Sharma Deceased Thr. Lrs on 9 August, 2017

D.A.V. College Trust And Managing ... vs Director Of Public Instructions on 17 September, 2019

Insofar as engineering colleges are concerned, their exclusion may be for the reason that the opening and running of the private engineering colleges are controlled through the Board of Technical Education and Training and the Director of Technical Education in accordance with the directions issued by the AICTE from time to time…” This judgment was followed in Bharat Coop. Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. v. Coop. Bank Employees Union3 and Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors.4 2 (1995) Supp 2 SCC 348 3 (2007) 4 SCC 685 4 (2011) 2 SCC 54
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 14 - D Gupta - Full Document

Union Of India Rep. By The vs V.Kumaravelu on 25 November, 2021

Again placing reliance on the judgment in Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by LR's and others, (2011) 2 SCC 54, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the Apex Court has held that the Reference Court should implead the interested party for the 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.603/2016 purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable to the landowners.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document

Sh. Ram Chander (Dead) Thr Lrs vs Union Of India on 20 April, 2022

Therefore, when review applications/petitions were allowed on 12.05.2017 on the ground that pursuant to the decision of this Court in the case of DDA Vs. Bhola Nath Sharma (supra) dated 08.12.2010, the first appeals are remanded and pending, in fact there was already a decision on remand vide judgment and order dated 23.03.2016 and even the SLP was dismissed. Therefore, the ground on which the High Court had allowed the review applications was thereafter not available. Under the 8 circumstances, and in view of the subsequent development, which was even pointed out to the High Court while filing the recall application being CMA No. 23091/2017, the order(s) passed by the High Court in Review Petition Nos. 309/2008 and 310/2008 deserve(s) to be quashed and set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - M R Shah - Full Document

Cen.Pub.Information Officer,Sci . vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal on 13 November, 2019

“30. The legislature, in its wisdom, while defining the expression “public authority” under Section 2(h), intended to embrace only those categories, which are specifically included, unless the context of the Act otherwise requires. Section 2(h) has used the expressions “means” and “includes”. When a word is defined to “mean” something, the definition is prima facie restrictive and where the word is defined to “include” some other thing, the definition is prima facie extensive. But when both the expressions “means” and “includes” are used, the categories mentioned there 10 (2013) 16 SCC 82 Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 & Ors. Page 16 of 108 would exhaust themselves. The meanings of the expressions “means” and “includes” have been explained by this Court in DDA v. Bhola Nath Sharma (in paras 25 to 28). When such expressions are used, they may afford an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which for the purpose of the Act, must invariably be attached to those words and expressions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 147 - Cited by 4 - S Khanna - Full Document

M.P. Road Development Corporation vs Gyantibai on 26 February, 2020

The Supreme Court in the matter of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bhola Nath Sharma and others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 54 while considering the Section 50(2) of the Act, has held that the object of the provision is to afford an opportunity to the local authority or company to participate in the proceedings for determination of compensation amount and to show that the claim made by the land owner for payment of compensation is legally untenable or unjustified, therefore, notice to the local authority is necessary.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - P Shrivastava - Full Document

Bangalore Turf Club Limited vs State Information Commissioner on 13 January, 2021

under Section 2(h), intended to embrace only 67 those categories, which are specifically included, unless the context of the Act otherwise requires. Section 2(h) has used the expressions "means" and "includes". When a word is defined to "mean" something, the definition is prima facie restrictive and where the word is defined to "include" some other thing, the definition is prima facie extensive. But when both the expressions "means" and "includes" are used, the categories mentioned there would exhaust themselves. The meanings of the expressions "means" and "includes" have been explained by this Court in DDA v. Bhola Nath Sharma (in paras 25 to 28). When such expressions are used, they may afford an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which for the purpose of the Act, must invariably be attached to those words and expressions.
Karnataka High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 1 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Srikalahasti Pipes Limited vs Andhra Pradesh State Power ... on 27 April, 2021

61. It is submitted that the use of the word "including" makes it clear that that "cross subsidies" and "operational constraints" are only illustrative factors, in the section itself, to be kept in mind by the State Commissions. However, the conscious choice of the words "all relevant factors" used by the Legislature denotes that factors different and apart from "cross subsidies and operational constraints" are also required to be considered by the State Commissions when a request to grant open access is made. It is trite law that the use of the word "including"/ "includes" is only illustrative and not exhaustive. The intention of the legislature is clearly to make "relevant factors" wide and extensive. (Reliance is placed on DDA v. Bhola Nath Sharma - reported at (2011) 2 SCC 54 Paras 25 - 28 for "including").
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hira Lal Nayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 January, 2022

121. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the arbitration award dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Jagdalpur is also illegal and same is liable to be quashed as the petitioner/Bastar Railway Private Limited (BRPL) has not been arrayed as party. He would further submit that the respondent No. 7/Smt. Neelima Belsaria has filed an application on 26.02.2019 for re-calculation of the compensation and grant of interest before the Arbitrator/Commissioner, Jagdalpur wherein the Additional Collector/Competent Authority as well as Chief Executive Officer (Construction), South Eastern Central Railway have been made party, but the petitioner has not been made party. The Commissioner vide its award dated 11.07.2019 has allowed the application without any notice to the petitioner, which is in violation of the principle of natural justice and he would refer to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by Lrs. & others15 wherein it has been held at paragraph 42, 15 (2011) 2 SCC 54 Page 91 of 96 which is extracted below:-
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 92 - Cited by 0 - N K Vyas - Full Document

Bastar Railway Private Limited vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 January, 2022

121. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the arbitration award dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Jagdalpur is also illegal and same is liable to be quashed as the petitioner/Bastar Railway Private Limited (BRPL) has not been arrayed as party. He would further submit that the respondent No. 7/Smt. Neelima Belsaria has filed an application on 26.02.2019 for re-calculation of the compensation and grant of interest before the Arbitrator/Commissioner, Jagdalpur wherein the Additional Collector/Competent Authority as well as Chief Executive Officer (Construction), South Eastern Central Railway have been made party, but the petitioner has not been made party. The Commissioner vide its award dated 11.07.2019 has allowed the application without any notice to the petitioner, which is in violation of the principle of natural justice and he would refer to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by Lrs. & others15 wherein it has been held at paragraph 42, 15 (2011) 2 SCC 54 Page 91 of 96 which is extracted below:-
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 92 - Cited by 0 - N K Vyas - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next