Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
M.Vishnukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 June, 2022 cites

Kalu Ram Ahuja & Anr vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 25 August, 2008

“..... Undisputedly, the D.D.A. had taken a conscious decision to auction the plot. It is neither the pleaded case of the respondents nor any material has been produced before this Court to show that the said decision was taken by the competent authority under some mis-apprehension. It is also not in dispute that the appellants participated in the auction held on 1st June, 1988, and gave highest bid, which, as mentioned above, was rejected by the Vice-Chairman, D.D.A. The communication dated 7th July, 1988, does not make a mention of the reason which may have prompted the Vice- Chairman to reject the bid given by the appellants. No other record has been produced before the Court to show that the decision of the Vice-Chairman was based on rational and tangible reasons and was in public interest. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the decision of the concerned authority was wholly arbitrary. The learned Single https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/18 W.P.No.1091 of 2022 Judge without properly appreciating the nature of the appellants’ challenge to the rejection of their bid, dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench also committed the same error by dismissing the appeal. Therefore, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside, writ petition filed by the appellants before the High Court is allowed and the decision of the Vice- Chairman, D.D.A. to reject the bid of the appellants is quashed. The appellants are directed to deposit the amount of bid along with the interest thereon at the rate of eighteen per cent from the date of bid till the date of actual payment within a period of three months from today. Thereafter the D.D.A. shall complete all the formalities of land and hand over possession to the appellants. The needful be done within three months from the date the amount is deposited by the appellants.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

S.Abdul Rasheed vs The Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 28 September, 2012

23. The learned standing counsel of the respondents has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 28.09.2012 in the case of 'S.Abdul Rasheed Vs. The Tamil Housing Board & others' rendered in WA.No.1510 of 2009 and WP.No.11288 of 2009, involving auction sale, primarily in respect of a commercial transaction, in which the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to be exercised with utmost care and caution and that too in furtherance of public interest and also keeping in mind the overall welfare of the State. The Hon'ble Division Bench held that when a Court of law comes to a conclusion that the public interest requires interference, then, it is bound to interfere unhesitatingly, to prevent aberration of justice.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - E D Rao - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Dinesh Engineering Corpn. & Anr on 18 September, 2001

(a) Union of India & others Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation & another reported in (2001) 8 SCC 491: For the purpose of the proposition that a public authority even in contractual matters should not have unfettered discretion and in contracts having commercial element even though some extra discretion is to be conceded in such authorities, they are bound to follow the norms recognised by Courts while dealing with public property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in the aforesaid decisions that this requirement is necessary to avoid unreasonable and arbitrary decisions being taken by public authorities whose actions are amenable to judicial review.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 222 - Full Document
1