Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)
Delhi Development Authority vs Nanak Chand on 21 August, 2014 cites

Dev Raj vs D.D.A. on 11 July, 2013

7. We notice that the learned Single Judge had fixed the date of passing of the impugned order as the cut-off date on which the price prevalent would be applicable. This was premised on the counsel for the petitioner offering his no objection in accepting the allotment on that basis. We also note that the query was put by the Court, but the _______________________________________________________________________ LPA Nos.193 of 2014 & 298 of 2014 Page 6 of 8 question remains: would it be fair to put a query to the petitioner‟s counsel which could compromise the petitioner‟s legal rights? This court is of the view that where the allotment was delayed on account of fault of DDA as has been held in Mahinder Pal Sikri (supra), Dev Raj (supra) and Ms. Prem Bhatnagar (supra) the applicant/petitioner cannot be burdened with the cost prevailing on the day when the writ petition was disposed off.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - Manmohan - Full Document

Delhi Development Authority vs Mahinder Pal Sikri (Deceased) Through ... on 28 November, 2013

7. We notice that the learned Single Judge had fixed the date of passing of the impugned order as the cut-off date on which the price prevalent would be applicable. This was premised on the counsel for the petitioner offering his no objection in accepting the allotment on that basis. We also note that the query was put by the Court, but the _______________________________________________________________________ LPA Nos.193 of 2014 & 298 of 2014 Page 6 of 8 question remains: would it be fair to put a query to the petitioner‟s counsel which could compromise the petitioner‟s legal rights? This court is of the view that where the allotment was delayed on account of fault of DDA as has been held in Mahinder Pal Sikri (supra), Dev Raj (supra) and Ms. Prem Bhatnagar (supra) the applicant/petitioner cannot be burdened with the cost prevailing on the day when the writ petition was disposed off.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Sheelawanti And Anr., ... vs Delhi Development Authority And Anr. on 3 February, 1995

12. The instant case, on the other hand, is covered by the judgments of this Court in Ravi Dass v. DDA, W.P.(C) No.5554/2011, decided on 16.02.2012, Sushil Kumar Jain v. DDA , W.P.(C) No.7433/2012, decided on 12.11.2013, DDA v. Mohinder Singh, LPA No.1067/2011, decided on 14.02.2012, and DDA v. Ms. Prem Bhatnagar, LPA No.1098/2011, decided on 14.02.2012."
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 746 - D K Jain - Full Document

Hirdayapal Singh vs Dda on 6 February, 2007

In Mahinder Pal Sikri (supra) this Court relied upon the principle of Hirdayapal Singh v. DDA, 2007 (94) DRJ 741, which held that: "the _______________________________________________________________________ LPA Nos.193 of 2014 & 298 of 2014 Page 4 of 8 respondent, who had waited for the flat for so long, ought not to be deprived thereof for her default in intimating the change of address. The exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge is not interfereable in appeal unless found to be perverse. No perversity is found in the present case. On the contrary with the respondent expressing willingness to pay the cost of the flat of the year 2011, the interest of the appellant DDA stands sufficiently protected." The Court went on to hold that:
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 18 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Delhi Development Authority vs Ms. Prem Bhatnagar on 14 February, 2012

7. We notice that the learned Single Judge had fixed the date of passing of the impugned order as the cut-off date on which the price prevalent would be applicable. This was premised on the counsel for the petitioner offering his no objection in accepting the allotment on that basis. We also note that the query was put by the Court, but the _______________________________________________________________________ LPA Nos.193 of 2014 & 298 of 2014 Page 6 of 8 question remains: would it be fair to put a query to the petitioner‟s counsel which could compromise the petitioner‟s legal rights? This court is of the view that where the allotment was delayed on account of fault of DDA as has been held in Mahinder Pal Sikri (supra), Dev Raj (supra) and Ms. Prem Bhatnagar (supra) the applicant/petitioner cannot be burdened with the cost prevailing on the day when the writ petition was disposed off.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1