Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)
M/S Jain And Brothers vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 August, 2021 cites

Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress vs Staet Of M.P. & Ors on 6 April, 2011

In view of such existing facts since the similarly placed lessee of plot No.1, wherein the permission was granted to change the purpose of use of land applying the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court that the action of the State should not give the smack of arbitrariness or the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the officers of the State, it is directed that the State would pass an order for change of land use in parity to the order passed in favour of lessee of the plot No.1 wherein the change of use of commercial was permitted from cinema. Since the litigation in this case shows that it is a 5 th petition including three writ petitions and one contempt petition, therefore, in order to put a rest to the litigation for a lease which was granted in the year 1996, the respondents are directed to decide the grant of change of permission to the petitioner at parity with the other lessee of plot No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 167 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

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

22. Therefore, the series of facts would show that the State over a period of time tried to improve their defense to support the dismissal of application to change the land use. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others {(1978) 1 SCC 405} has held that when a statutory functionary makes an order 21 based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge get validated by additional grounds later brought out.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document

State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011

24. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and another Vs. Mamata Mohanty {(2011) 3 SCC 436} has held that every action of the State or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above board but but should be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be 22 suggestive of discrimination nor even give an impression of bias, favourtism and nepotism. Official arbitrariness, therefore, is more subversive of the doctrine of equality than statutory discrimination. Herein in the instant case, the layout which was passed by the RDA stands for both the plots i.e. Plot No.1 & Plot No.2 and there is no statutory discrimination. Therefore, the intelligible differentia when the petitioner and the person who has been granted permission cannot be set into motion when they are grouped together as the differentia must have a reasonable nexus.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 995 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh 6 Wps/4027/2018 ... on 18 June, 2018

In the meanwhile, another communication was made by the RDA to the Town & Country Planning, wherein it was pointed out that pendency of WPC No.2764/2008 of which reference was made by State to dismiss the representation on the ground that same issue is pending, it was of some 10 another case between Ritesh Kumar Gupta Vs. R.T.O. Chhattisgarh, which had no nexus with the issue of present case. Despite disclosure of said fact the application of the petitioner remained undecided.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 69 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Ram Kumar Barnwal vs Ram Lakhan (Dead) on 14 May, 2007

18. Thereafter, after the State has again dismissed the application to review the order dated 18.11.2019, primarily it appears that while passing the order dated 28.08.2020 the authorities completely misjudged the spirit of the order and the documents. Though the basic rule is that the rights of the parties should be determined on the basis of the date of institution of the suit or proceeding but it does not mean that the events happened after the institution of the suit/proceedings cannot be considered at all. It is the power and duty of the Court to consider changed circumstances. A Court of law may take into 18 account subsequent events when it is necessary to take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten litigation and if it is necessary to do so in order to do complete justice between the parties. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Barnwal Vs. Ram Lakhan (DEAD) {(2007) 5 SCC 660} has observed that the Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly when taking note of such subsequent events or changed circumstances would shorten the litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties and that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 50 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1