Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)
Dy. Commissioner (South West) ... vs Ramesh Kumari on 5 December, 2008 cites

Air India vs Cochin International Airport Ltd on 31 January, 2000

24. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 HLDPL first pointed out that NOCs have been issued by both the ADM as well as the MCD for the transfer of its shares in October 2006 and February 2007. Half the land had already been sold pursuant to the NOCs. The land allotted to the DC was no less valuable than the land which was earlier available to it. A large amount of moneys had changed hands during these transactions and therefore it would be unjust to put the clock back by declaring all these transactions illegal. He also pointed out that government officials were themselves responsible for bringing out the situation and it would be unfair to blame the subsequent purchasers who had as part of the due diligence and exercise obtained the NOC and clarified that there was no encumbrance of the property. He finally submitted that the MCD has already sanctioned the plan for building a motel and HLDPL had already spent Rs.68.06 lakhs. Of the 5 bighas and 18 biswas of its land which forms part of the disputed land, 2 bighas and 6 biswas have been taken away for widening the road and only 3 bighas and 12 biswas of land remains. Any interference at this stage would be inequitable. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Oil & Natural Gas Commission Limited v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel (2005) 6 SCC 454, P.Srinivas v. M. Radhakrishna Murti (2004) 4 SCC 459, Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 6 SCC 545, Rajesh D. Darbar v. Narasing Rao Krishnaji Kulkani (2003) 7 SCC 219, Ram Niwas Gagar (Dead) by Lrs v. Debojyoti Das (2002) 10 AD SC 306, Air India Limited v. Cochin International Airport Limited (2000) 2 SCC 617, P.S. Sadashivswami v. State of W.P. (C) No.7687 of 2004 etc. Page 19 of 47 Tamilnadu 1975 (1) SCC 152, Balwant Rai Chimanlal Trivedi v. M.N. Nagrashna AIR 1960 SC 1292, A.M. Alison & H.P. Brigg.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 340 - G T Nanavati - Full Document

A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors vs Government Of A.P. & Ors on 7 March, 2007

In A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. AIR 2007 SC 1546, the Supreme Court held that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court, tribunal or authority is a nullity and non est W.P. (C) No.7687 of 2004 etc. Page 26 of 47 in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order -- by the first court or by the final court -- has to be treated as nullity by every court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 629 - C K Thakker - Full Document

M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd vs Radhey Shyam Sahu And Others on 26 July, 1999

In fact it is shocking that Smt. Ramesh Kumari and her family members persisted with the sale transactions notwithstanding this litigation. None of the interim orders in her W.P. (C) No.7687 of 2004 etc. Page 32 of 47 favour could have created any equity in her favour, much less in the subsequent transferees. These are not cases where the court should grant equitable relief to the transferees. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu (1999) 6 SCC 464, in the context of unauthorised constructions by builders, "a discretion cannot be exercised which encourages illegality or perpetuates an illegality......judicial discretion cannot be guided by expediency."
Supreme Court of India Cites 77 - Cited by 432 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document
1   2 Next