Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.29 seconds)Section 22 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors vs Om Prakash Sharma on 18 April, 2013
In the case of Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others Vs. Om Prakash Sharma (supra), the Apex Court held as follows: (Para-27, 28, 29, 30 and 31)
"It is an undisputed fact that public auction was held in relation to the property of the first defendant vide public notice dated 4-3-1977 published in the local newspapers by the Parishad for auction of nine shops and the plot earmarked for cinema hall measuring 3441 sq. m. The auction was supervised and conducted on 11-3-1977 by on Mr Ram Kumar Singh Bisen, the then Assistant Housing Commissioner. It was also an admitted fact that the plaintiff was the highest bidder as he had quoted Rs.1.31,500 in relation to the plot and he has deposited a sum of Rs.26,500, that is, 20% of the amount of bid plus Rs. 500 as earnest money.
Section 29 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
State Of Orissa And Ors vs Harinarayan Jaiswal And Ors on 14 March, 1972
In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal case, relevant paragraph of which reads as under : (SCC pp.44-45, para 13)
"13. Even apart from the power conferred on the Government under Sections 22 and 29, we fail to see how the power retained by the Government under clause (6) of its order, dated 6-1-1971, can be considered as unconstitutional.
Rajasthan Housing Board And Another vs G.S. Investments And Another on 31 October, 2006
The law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid paragraph in support of the proposition of law that so long as an order regarding final acceptance of the bid had not been passed by the Chairman of the Housing Board, the highest bidder acquire no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour and the auction proceedings could always be cancelled. Further, he has placed reliance on another decision of this Court in Lasmikant referred to supra. In support of the proposition of law this Court has rightly pointed out that the "State" or the authority, which can be held to the "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, is not bound to accept the highest tender/offer or bid and the Government could validly retain its power to accept or reject the highest bid in the interest of public revenue.
Cooverjee B. Bharucha vs The Excise Commissioner Andthe Chief ... on 13 January, 1954
Raising revenue as held by this Court in Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commr. case was one of the important purposes of which provisions. The fact that the price fetched by the sale of country liquor is an excise revenue does not change the nature of the right. The sale in question is but a mode of raising revenue. Assuming that the question of arbitrary or unguided power can arise in a case o this nature, it should not be forgotten that the power to accept or reject the highest bid is given to the highest authority in the State i.e. the Government which is expected to safeguard the finances of the State. Such a power cannot be considered as an arbitrary power. If that power is exercise for any collateral purposes, the exercise of the power will be struck down. It may also be remembered that herein we are not dealing with a delegated power but with a power conferred by the legislature.
Rohtas Industries Ltd vs S.D. Agarwal & Anr on 16 December, 1968
The High Court erroneously thought that the Government was bound to satisfy the Court that there was collusion between the bidders. The High Court was not sitting on appeal against the order made by the Government. The inference of the Government that there was a collusion among the bidders may be right or wrong. But that was not open to judicial review so long as it is not proved that it was a make-believe one. The real opinion formed by the Government was that the price fetched was not adequate. That conclusion is taken on the basis of Government expectations. The conclusion reached by the Government does not affect any one's right. Hence, in our opinion, the High Court misapplied the ratio of the decision of this Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, reported in AIR 1967 SC 295 and Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal, reported in (1969) 1 SCC 325."