Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (7.65 seconds)
Documents citing Shanta Talwar & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2011

Tata Communications Ltd vs Uoi And Ors. on 25 November, 2019

23. Learned senior counsel submitted that the urgency in the need and requirement of the metro project has been taken into judicial notice. He submitted that the expeditious construction was required for the decongestion of the traffic and for reducing air pollution in Delhi. Reliance was placed on Shanta Talwar v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 287 (para 10); Rajender Kishan Gupta v. Lt.Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2010 (166) DLT 278 (para 34); Rajinder Kishan Gupta v. Union of India, (2010) 9 SCC 46; and Summit Imports Services Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2008 (103) DRJ 263.
Delhi High Court Cites 108 - Cited by 0 - G S Sistani - Full Document

Shree Yashwant Co-Operative Housing ... vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 30 March, 2023

What is held in Shanta Talwar (supra) by the Supreme Court is that if resort is taken to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, the said provisions could only be made applicable and that provisions of Metro Act 1978 cannot be resorted to. Similarly, if acquisition is resorted to under the provisions of Metro Act 1978, then only those provisions would apply and not the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. In the present case petitioners have not placed on record any material to show that the provisions of Chapter III of Metro Act 1978 were invoked, in any manner, by MMRDA for land acquisition. On the contrary it is specific case of petitioners that the provisions of Chapter III of the Act are not followed by MMRDA. In this regard we reproduce the heading of legal submission No. II of petitioner Indo-Nippon:
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S V Marne - Full Document

Indo Nippon Chemical Co. Ltd vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 30 March, 2023

What is held in Shanta Talwar (supra) by the Supreme Court is that if resort is taken to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, the said provisions could only be made applicable and that provisions of Metro Act 1978 cannot be resorted to. Similarly, if acquisition is resorted to under the provisions of Metro Act 1978, then only those provisions would apply and not the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. In the present case petitioners have not placed on record any material to show that the provisions of Chapter III of Metro Act 1978 were invoked, in any manner, by MMRDA for land acquisition. On the contrary it is specific case of petitioners that the provisions of Chapter III of the Act are not followed by MMRDA. In this regard we reproduce the heading of legal submission No. II of petitioner Indo-Nippon:
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S V Marne - Full Document

Dr.Om Prakash Sharma vs M/S Sai Chhaya Autolink(P)Ltd on 30 March, 2012

The judgments relied upon are Sohan Lal Naraindas Vs. Laxmidas Raghunath Gadit, 1971 (1), SCC 276, Corporation of Calicut Vs. K. Sreenivasan, (2002) 5 SCC 361, New Bus-Stand Shop Owners Association Vs. Corporation of Kozhikode and another, (2009) 10 SCC 455, Shanta Talwar and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2011) 5 SCC 287 and finally Pradeep Oil Corporation Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, (2011) 5 SCC 270 .
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mkhtyar Ahmad @ Mkhtyar Mehmood vs State Of U.P. Thru'Secretary Urban ... on 18 July, 2013

Learned Standing Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Mahadevappa Lachappa Kinagi and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2008)12 SCC 418, Tika Ram and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2009)10 SCC 689, Nand Kishore Gupta and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2010)10 SCC 282 and Shanta Talwar and another vs. Union of India and others reported in (2011)5 SCC 287.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next