Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)
Raghuleela Builders Private Limited ... vs The Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 20 November, 2019 cites

Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003

20. Respondent No. 1 is admittedly a statutory body and is governed by the MMRD Act, 1974 and Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development (Disposal of land) Regulations, 1977. The first respondent has submitted that the lease dated 15 th July 2008 is a statutory lease and has claimed the demand for payment as statutory dues and has threatened to determine the lease and enter upon the demised premises and proceed to recover the amount due as arrears of land revenue. It is an admitted position that Respondent No.1 is an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is settled law that in an appropriate petition against the State or against the instrumentality of State, arising out of contractual obligation is maintainable. This position is well supported by ratio laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in ABL International v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation [(2004) 3 SCC 553 and Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Commissioner Bhatinda [AIR-1970 SC 892] patilsr 29/ 45 586/18 final
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 1154 - Full Document

Joshi Technologies International Inc vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 May, 2015

He stated that the to resolve the disputes raised in the petition, the Petitioners have an alternative remedy under the MMRD Act, for which he relied on judgment in Joshi Technologies vs Union of India [(2015) 7 SCC 728] . He submitted that the claims are time barred, the first demand notice was sent on 11 th February 2014 and first rejection by respondents of petitioners request for withdrawal of levy of delay premium was on 23 rd January 2014. He further submitted that the petitioners have suppressed material facts and documents such as various undertakings, affidavits, commencement certificates etc wherein patilsr 18/ 45 586/18 final the Petitioners have assured and undertaken to pay premium for delay under clause 2(d) of the lease-deed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 393 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 April, 1989

21. The MMRDA being "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is required to act in a just, fair and reasonable manner in all spheres of its activities including the contractual matters and its dealings with the citizens and has to be informed by the reasons, failing which the such action or decision are liable to be treated as arbitrary and unreasonable. The MMRDA's actions must be founded on sound, transparent, discernible and well-defined policy which should not be discriminatory or arbitrary. The same is the settled position of law as held in numerous judgments, namely, R. D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [(1979) 3 SCC 489], M/s. Dwarkadas Marfataia & Sons v. Board of Trustees of the port of Bombay [(1989) 3 SCC 293] and Jamshed Hasmukhji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Bombay [(2004) 3 SCC 214] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 597 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 Next