Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.46 seconds)
M/S Popcorn Entertainment & Anr vs City Industrial Development Corpn. & ... on 23 February, 2007
cites
Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 4 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Amey Co-Op.Housing Society Ltd. ... vs Public Concern For Governance Trust & ... on 1 February, 2007
He invited our attention to the recent pronouncement of
this Court in the case of Amey Cooperative Housing Society
Ltd. vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust, 2007(2)
SCALE 405. In that case, the Advocate General of
Maharashtra submitted regarding the status of the Shankaran
Committee report that it was treated by the State Government
to be a preliminary report only and not conclusive and that in
the final cancellation order the only ground made was that the
allotment had been made without calling for tenders and
without resorting to the process of competitive bidding.
Much argument was also advanced in regard to the
allegations which have been made out in the counter affidavit
before the High Court and in this Court. It is submitted that
they were not made party in the show cause notice and were
also not a part of the final order of cancellation which is
impugned by the appellant in these proceedings.
Union Of India & Ors vs E.G. Nambudiri on 23 April, 1991
It is also argued that the
said Constitution Bench judgment of this Court has been
followed in Union of India & Ors. vs. E.G. Nambudiri , 1991
(3) SCC 38, State Govt. Houseless Harijan Employees' vs.
State of Karnataka & Ors. , 2001 (1) SCC 610, Pavanendra
Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI Medical Sciences &
Anr. , 2002 (1) SCC 520 and in Chandra Singh & Ors. vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr. , 2003 (6) SCC 545. Thus, the
learned senior submitted that the CIDCO is trying to go
beyond the terms of the show cause notice/final order of
cancellation when admittedly CIDCO has affirmed other
similar allotment and permitted them to continue construction
inspite of the allotment being made to the other parties
without inviting tenders.
State Govt. Houseless Harijan ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 December, 2000
It is also argued that the
said Constitution Bench judgment of this Court has been
followed in Union of India & Ors. vs. E.G. Nambudiri , 1991
(3) SCC 38, State Govt. Houseless Harijan Employees' vs.
State of Karnataka & Ors. , 2001 (1) SCC 610, Pavanendra
Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI Medical Sciences &
Anr. , 2002 (1) SCC 520 and in Chandra Singh & Ors. vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr. , 2003 (6) SCC 545. Thus, the
learned senior submitted that the CIDCO is trying to go
beyond the terms of the show cause notice/final order of
cancellation when admittedly CIDCO has affirmed other
similar allotment and permitted them to continue construction
inspite of the allotment being made to the other parties
without inviting tenders.
The Printers (Mysore) Ltd vs M.A. Rasheed & Ors on 5 April, 2004
The
appellant in the reply to show cause notice has also referred to
judgments in Printers (Mysore) Ltd. vs. M.A. Rasheed &
Ors. , 2004 (4) SCC 460 and Chairman & MD.BPL.
Smt. Gunwant Kaur And Ors. vs Municipal Committee, Bhatinda And Ors. on 4 December, 1969
As regards non-maintainability of the writ petition, the
appellant relied upon the following decisions of this Court
wherein this Court has held that the writ petitions can be held
to be maintainable under certain circumstances:
i. Smt. Gunwant Kaur & Ors. vs. Municipal
Committee Bhatinda & Ors [1969 (3) SCC 769].