Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.36 seconds)Delhi Development Authority vs Ashok Kumar Behal And Ors on 20 August, 2002
Thereafter, the Supreme Court gave it is decision in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Ashok Kumar Behal : wherein it specifically approved the Full Bench decision in the following words:-
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Premji Bhai Parmar & Others Etc vs Delhi Development Authority & Others on 21 December, 1979
22. There is a line of decisions where the contract entered into between the State and the persons aggrieved is non-statutory and purely contractual and the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract, no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple - Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar , Premji Bhai Parmar v. Delhi Development Authority and DFO v. Biswanath Tea Company Ltd. .
Radhakrishna Agarwal & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 March, 1977
22. There is a line of decisions where the contract entered into between the State and the persons aggrieved is non-statutory and purely contractual and the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract, no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple - Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar , Premji Bhai Parmar v. Delhi Development Authority and DFO v. Biswanath Tea Company Ltd. .
J.P. Gupta vs D.D.A. on 12 February, 1996
''In keeping with our observations and findings recorded above, we are of the opinion that, in view of Clauses (13) and (14) of the brochure and the transaction being contractual, this Court cannot interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the matter of pricing/costing of flats, including escalation of cost of land, etc.''
The decision in J.P. Gupta v. DDA (supra) merely follows the Full Bench decision in Smt Sheelawanti (supra) and, therefore, need not be discussed in detail.
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. And Anr vs B.D. Agarwal And Ors on 7 July, 2003
In Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal: held:-
Indian Thermal Power Ltd. Etc. Etc vs State Of M.P. And Ors on 16 February, 2000
Only where entering into a contract containing prescribed terms and conditions is a just under the statute, does it become a statutory contract (See: India Thermal Power Ltd [supra]). This is not the case here. The contracts are not statutory contracts. The disputes herein are not in the field of public law but purely in the realm of private law. As such, the same have to be decided under general principles of contract. A writ petition under article 226 would not be maintainable.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Indore Development Authority vs Smt. Sadhana Agarwal & Ors on 7 March, 1995
5.The petitioners relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Sadhana Agarwal and Others: wherein the Supreme Court observed that although, it had, from time to time upheld the excess charge by the development authorities over the costs initially announced as estimated costs, it should not also be understood that the Supreme Court has held that the development authorities had an absolute right to hike the cost of flats, initially announce as approximate or estimated cost for such flats. It was also clearly indicated in the said judgment that it is well known that persons belonging to middle and lower income groups, before registering themselves for such flats, had to take their financial capacity into consideration and in some cases it results in great hardship when the development authorities announce an estimated or approximate cost and deliver the same at twice or thrice of the said amount. The Supreme Court categorically observed that ''final cost should be proportionate to the approximate or estimated cost mentioned in the offers or agreements.'' The Supreme Court in particular observed as under:-