Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.46 seconds)
Smt. Renu Bali vs Delhi Development Authority on 30 October, 2003 cites

Shri R.K. Sachar vs Delhi Development Authority on 13 September, 2002

22. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the principles laid down in R.K. Sachar v. Delhi Development Authority, 104 (2003) DLT 426=2002 VIII AD (DELHI) 280 would not apply to the facts of the present case. This is stated to be so on account of the fact that the present cases are one of Self Financing Scheme(s). The policy dedsion in respect of imposition of 20% surcharge was taken on 16.8.1996 and came into force on 22.8.1996, when it was approved by the Vice-Chairman, DDA. It was submitted that at least two Installments had already been paid prior to the date of 16.8.1996 and there was deferred payment of Installments in certain cases on account of delay in construction by DDA. The delay had dual consequences of deferment of payment of Installments and interest on the belated construction beyond 30 months. It was, thus, submitted that but for the delay on the part of the respondent DDA in completing the project, the allottees would have got possession prior to the date of 16.8.1996 and the policy would have had no application insofar as the registrants who had registered much earlier and were entitled to the flats within at least 30 months' period of time, but that did not happen.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Hindustan Times & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 November, 2002

While dealing with the issue of exaction in Hindustan Times's case (supra), the Supreme Court was of the considered view that there cannot be any compulsory exaction, unless there exists a specific provision of law operating in the field. The case was one where a deduction was being made out of the bills of a certain percentage in the nature of a taxation. A number of judgments were referred to in this behalf, but it is not necessary to go further into details of this aspect in view of the fact that there cannot be any dispute about the proposition that there cannot be any taxation or cess except by authority of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 58 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Koluthara Exports Ltd vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 2 February, 2002

28. We may at this juncture notice that a Constitution Bench of this Court in Koluthara Exports Lt. v. State of Kerala has observed that even if a State in exercise of its legislative power under Entry 23 List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India can make a welfare legislation, yet the burden of impost cannot be placed upon a person who is neither a member of the society nor the employer of a person who is a member of such society. It was held that: (SCC p. 466, Para 18) "There can be no doubt that Entry 23 enables the State Legislature of enact a law in respect of social security and social insurance or dealing with employment and unemployment. The provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act (quoted above) postulate social security and welfare measures of the fishermen. The State can, therefore, justify its competence under this entry. But, in our view, the State cannot, in an Act under Entry 23 of List III, place the burden of an impost by way of contribution for giving effect to the Act and the Scheme made there under for the social security and social welfare of a section of society upon a person who is not a member of such section of society nor an employer of a person who is a member of such section of society. The burden of the impost may be placed only when there exists the relationship of employer and employee between the contributor and the beneficiary of the provisions of the Act and the scheme made there under."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1