Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.45 seconds)
Maithri Developers vs The Real Estate Regulatory Authority on 10 March, 2020 cites

Orissa Textile And Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 17 January, 2002

In this regard, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel (supra) would be beneficial. In the said decision, the Apex Court has held that penalty will not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. It was also held that even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 83 - Full Document

Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Smt. P. Laxmi Devi on 25 February, 2008

5. The learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner has also approached the Appellate Authority as provided under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act. However, it is submitted that in terms of proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 43, the Appellate Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit thirty per cent of the penalty, as a pre-condition for considering the appeal filed by the petitioner. The learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner is not in a position to deposit 30% of the penalty. The learned Counsel would place reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court i.e., Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. P.Lakshmi Devi reported in (2008) 4 SCC 720 and M/s.Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa reported in 1969 (2) SCC 627.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 725 - M Katju - Full Document
1