Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.32 seconds)
Haryana Urban Dev. Authority vs Orchid Infrastructure Developers ... on 27 January, 2017 cites

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

In Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405, this Court has laid down that when a statutory functionary makes an order, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. This Court has held thus :
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document

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

31. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in Kalu Ram Ahuja & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. (2008) 10 SCC 696 in which this Court has laid down that the highest bid was rejected without assigning any reason and there was no record showing that the decision was based on rational and tangible reasons and was in public interest. In the instant case we are satisfied from the order that the reports were considered and what were the reports, has been made clear in the reply filed by the respondents which has not been controverted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram on 29 September, 1969

In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, the learned Senior Counsel Mr Rakesh Dwivedi has rightly placed reliance upon the same in support of the case of the first defendant, which would clearly go to show that the plaintiff had not acquired any right and no vested right has been accrued in his favour in respect of the plot in question merely because his bid amount is highest and he had deposited 20% of the highest bid amount along with the earnest money with the Board. In the absence of acceptance of bid offered by the plaintiff to the competent authority of the first defendant, there is no concluded contract in respect of the plot in question, which is evident from letters dated 26-5-1977 and 8-7-1977 wherein the third defendant had rejected the bid amount deposited by the plaintiff and the same was refunded to him by way of demand draft, which is an undisputed fact and it is also not his case that the then Assistant Housing Commissioner who has conducted the public auction had accepted the bid of the plaintiff.” (emphasis supplied).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 59 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1   2 Next