Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)
Vijay Bansal vs 1. Harayana Urban Development on 10 July, 2012 cites

Harsh Dhingra vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 September, 2001

7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, allotment of plot was made to the petitioner under the scheme called Discretionary Quota floated by respondent. Merely it was a special scheme, it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court. Petitioner had filed an application for allotment of the plot in accordance with law. After considering petitioners application, respondents decided to allot him a plot. Petitioner within the stipulated time deposited the initial amount with all the required documents. However, respondents under some pretext or the other returned the draft amount and documents to the petitioner stating that plot was allotted to some other person. Respondents were duty bound to allot an alternate plot to the petitioner since, allotment made under Discretionary Quota has been upheld by Honble Supreme Court, in Harsh Dhingra & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, decided on 28.9.2001.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 57 - Full Document

Balkrishna Savalram Pujari And Others vs Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharajsansthan & ... on 26 March, 1959

In Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, AIR 1959 S.C. 798 it was noticed that a cause of action which is complete cannot be recurring cause of action as in the present case. When the workers demanded that they should be allowed to resume work and they were not allowed to resume work, the cause of action was complete. In such a case the workers going on demanding each day to resume work would not arise at all. The question of demanding to allow to do work even on refusal does not stand to reason.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 113 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1