Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.63 seconds)
Patangali vs State Of U.P. on 1 June, 2012 cites

Kodoth Ambu Nair vs Echikan Cherekere Kelu Nair on 10 April, 1933

(i) Kodoth Ambu Nair v. Echikan Cherekere Kelu Nair, AIR 1933 PC 167 In this case Privy Council after quoting one of its earlier judgments held that one cannot at the same time blow hot and cold. He cannot say at one time that the transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and at another say it is void for the purpose of securing some further advantage.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

R.K. Kawatra, Etc. vs D.S.I.D.C., Etc. on 2 May, 1991

(iii) R.K. Kawatra, v. D.S.I.D.C., AIR 1992 Delhi 28 In this case some persons under the old scheme of allotment deposited the amount. The scheme was not finalised. Thereafter, new scheme was introduced providing for higher amount to be paid for the allotted land. Those persons taking benefit of the new scheme deposited higher amount after adjustment of deposit made under old scheme. It was held that those persons were bound by the new scheme.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - A Kumar - Full Document

Pannalal Binjraj vs Union Of India on 21 December, 1956

"11. Having taken benefit of the acceptance of their bids and consequent possession of the shops the appellants cannot turn back and Urge that the policy of putting the shops to auction was untenable. The learned single Judge applying the principle of ac quiescence, rejected the challenge of the appellants. The learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions placed reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court, namely, Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 397, Maj.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 307 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Chandra Bhan Singh vs Latafat Ullah Khan & Ors on 19 September, 1978

Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan, AIR 1978 SC 1814, Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, AIR 1986 SC 1043, State of Punjab v. Krishna Niwas, AIR 1997 SC 2349, State of Orissa v. Narain Prasad, (1996) 5 SCC 740) : (AIR 1997 SC 1493), State of Rajasthan v. Anil Kumar Sunil Kumar & Party, (2000) 4 JT (SC) 186 : (AIR 2000 SC 1441) and Kali Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (2000) 6 SCC 640 : (AIR 2000 SC 3722), wherein it was held that once an order is passed and accepted by the party and from that order it derives benefit and advantage for sometime, the party cannot be permitted to assail the validity of that order. The learned single Judge, therefore, rightly disallowed the appellants from assailing the validity of the policy of auction by virtue of which they have been deriving benefit of the possession of the shops and took advantage by utilising them for trading purpose. The parties entered into the bargain on the footing that the appellant shall pay the agreed rent based on bids given by them in open auction. Since the appellants seek to wriggle out of their basic obligation, the entire bargain will perish. In that event, as a necessary corollary the appellants will be required to give up the possession of the shops."
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 74 - P N Shinghal - Full Document

Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986

Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan, AIR 1978 SC 1814, Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, AIR 1986 SC 1043, State of Punjab v. Krishna Niwas, AIR 1997 SC 2349, State of Orissa v. Narain Prasad, (1996) 5 SCC 740) : (AIR 1997 SC 1493), State of Rajasthan v. Anil Kumar Sunil Kumar & Party, (2000) 4 JT (SC) 186 : (AIR 2000 SC 1441) and Kali Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (2000) 6 SCC 640 : (AIR 2000 SC 3722), wherein it was held that once an order is passed and accepted by the party and from that order it derives benefit and advantage for sometime, the party cannot be permitted to assail the validity of that order. The learned single Judge, therefore, rightly disallowed the appellants from assailing the validity of the policy of auction by virtue of which they have been deriving benefit of the possession of the shops and took advantage by utilising them for trading purpose. The parties entered into the bargain on the footing that the appellant shall pay the agreed rent based on bids given by them in open auction. Since the appellants seek to wriggle out of their basic obligation, the entire bargain will perish. In that event, as a necessary corollary the appellants will be required to give up the possession of the shops."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 652 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

State Of Orissa & Ors vs Narain Prasad & Ors.,Etc.Etc on 3 September, 1996

Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan, AIR 1978 SC 1814, Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, AIR 1986 SC 1043, State of Punjab v. Krishna Niwas, AIR 1997 SC 2349, State of Orissa v. Narain Prasad, (1996) 5 SCC 740) : (AIR 1997 SC 1493), State of Rajasthan v. Anil Kumar Sunil Kumar & Party, (2000) 4 JT (SC) 186 : (AIR 2000 SC 1441) and Kali Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (2000) 6 SCC 640 : (AIR 2000 SC 3722), wherein it was held that once an order is passed and accepted by the party and from that order it derives benefit and advantage for sometime, the party cannot be permitted to assail the validity of that order. The learned single Judge, therefore, rightly disallowed the appellants from assailing the validity of the policy of auction by virtue of which they have been deriving benefit of the possession of the shops and took advantage by utilising them for trading purpose. The parties entered into the bargain on the footing that the appellant shall pay the agreed rent based on bids given by them in open auction. Since the appellants seek to wriggle out of their basic obligation, the entire bargain will perish. In that event, as a necessary corollary the appellants will be required to give up the possession of the shops."
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 102 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Kali Prasad & Ors vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation & Ors on 26 July, 2000

Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan, AIR 1978 SC 1814, Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, AIR 1986 SC 1043, State of Punjab v. Krishna Niwas, AIR 1997 SC 2349, State of Orissa v. Narain Prasad, (1996) 5 SCC 740) : (AIR 1997 SC 1493), State of Rajasthan v. Anil Kumar Sunil Kumar & Party, (2000) 4 JT (SC) 186 : (AIR 2000 SC 1441) and Kali Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (2000) 6 SCC 640 : (AIR 2000 SC 3722), wherein it was held that once an order is passed and accepted by the party and from that order it derives benefit and advantage for sometime, the party cannot be permitted to assail the validity of that order. The learned single Judge, therefore, rightly disallowed the appellants from assailing the validity of the policy of auction by virtue of which they have been deriving benefit of the possession of the shops and took advantage by utilising them for trading purpose. The parties entered into the bargain on the footing that the appellant shall pay the agreed rent based on bids given by them in open auction. Since the appellants seek to wriggle out of their basic obligation, the entire bargain will perish. In that event, as a necessary corollary the appellants will be required to give up the possession of the shops."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 11 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Bareilly Development Authority vs Vrinda Gujarati & Ors on 26 February, 2004

(v) Bareilly Development Authority v. Vrinda Gujarati and Ors., 2004 (4) SCC 606 This authority has been cited by learned counsel for the K.D.A. in which it has been held that allottees of flats after giving undertaking to pay the enhanced amount and after taking possession of the flats cannot be allowed to refuse to pay on the ground that delay was on the part of the Development Authority, hence it could not be permitted to realise higher amount and allottees should be allotted the flats at the cost which was initially advertised by the authorities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 21 March, 2012

As the petitioner himself approached the Court against the show cause notice, raised the pleas on merit and invited the court to decide the matter on merit, hence this decision on the merit holding against the petitioner is sufficient and now no further decision is required to be taken by the State or K.D.A. Under somewhat similar circumstances, Supreme Court in M.M.S. Fernandes and others Vs. Erasmo Jack D.S., AIR 2012 SCW 2162 = JT 2012 (3) SC 451 (Paras 82 and 83) has held that if a person in possession seeks injunction against his eviction except in accordance with law and in the said suit it is held that plaintiff has got no right to remain in possession then the decision is sufficient and thereafter defendant need not file any suit for possession or declaration and after the decision against the plaintiff in such suit for injunction, he is liable to eviction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 1056 - Full Document
1