Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.18 seconds)Chairman, All Railway Rec. Board & Anr vs K. Shyam Kumar & Ors on 6 May, 2010
In Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board and
another Vs. K. Shyam Kumar and others (2010) 6 SCC 614, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as under:
Section 3 in Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.& Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 2008
The judgment in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. case
(supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable
to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon para 53 of the said judgment, which describes the grounds on which
subordinate legislation can be questioned. Ground (e) is that such
subordinate legislation is not reasonable. Mere quantification of the
C.W.P. No.291 of 2012 7
compounding fee at the rate of Rs.400/- per sq. yard for the saleable area
cannot be said to be unreasonable. The quantification of compounding fee
cannot be made subject matter of judicial review. Such fee is part of the
legislative discretion, which includes the discretion of the delegated
legislation keeping in view the doctrine of wednesbury and proportionality.
Section 14 in Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
1