Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.47 seconds)
Avashan Mandal Parijat Uch Ayavargh ... vs Rajasthan Housiong Board And Ors. on 16 November, 1992 cites

Delhi Development Authority vs Lala Amar Nath Educational And Human ... on 5 September, 1990

33. Mr. Lodha, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has next placed reliance on a decision of the Delhi High Court in DDA v. Lola Amamath Education and Human Society . In that case, the allotment of land could be made by the DDA to the educational bodies on the basis of no profit no loss. The allottees were asked to pay certain rate aprevalent for earlier two years and further to pay difference of cost of land as might be decided by the D.D.A. The difference in cost of land means increased cost of equation and other development charges. In those facts, the Delhi High Court has held that the basis of no profit and no loss cannot be changed. The Govt. is estopped from revising cost on the basis of market value. Thus, it is clear that the increased cost of land can be made on the basis of the increased cost of acquisition and other charges. The cost of the land cannot be increased on the basis of increase in its market value.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 15 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990

In Shrilenkha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. , their lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that It cannot be said that the appointment of District Government Counsel by the State Govt. is only a professional engagement like that between a private client and his lawyer, or that it Is purely contractual with no public element attaching to it, which may be terminated at any time at the sweet will of the Govt. excluding judicial review. The presence of public element attached to the Office of post of 'District Govt. Counsel 13 sufficient to attract Article 14 of the Constitution and bring the question of validity of impugned circular terminating appointment of all District Govt. Counsel in State of U.P. within the scope of judicial review. It was further observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 1487 - J S Verma - Full Document

A.N. Pathak And 5 Others vs Secretary To The Government, Ministry ... on 12 February, 1987

29.Mr. N.M. Lodha, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has next placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in A.N. Pathak v. Secy., to the Govt. Ministry of Defence , wherein it has been held that the joint petition was maintainable even if the dates of appointments, promotions, etc. were different. There was nothing to prevent the Court from modulating the relief and giving directions to the respondents to reconsider the offending lists with reference to each of the petitioners. Thus, keeping in view this latest legal petition, I am firmly of the view that the writ petitions, which have been filed on behalf of the applicants of second, third and fourth quarters of 1988 Parijat Scheme jointly, are maintainable. In this view of the matter, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. R.R. Vyas, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents cannot be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 78 - V Khalid - Full Document
1   2 Next