Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.03 seconds)
M/S. Aditya Enterprise vs City Industrial And Development ... on 20 April, 2023 cites

Kishor Limbraj Shinde vs Amar Baburao Kamble on 1 February, 2012

"5. Undisputedly, D.D.A. had taken a conscious decision to auction the plot. It is neither the pleaded case of the respondents nor has any material been produced before this Court to show that the said decision was taken by the competent authority under some misapprehension. It is also not in dispute that the appellants participated in the auction held on 21-6-1988, and gave the highest bid, which, as mentioned above, was rejected by the Vice-Chairman, D.D.A. The communication dated 7-7-1988, does not make a mention of the reason which may have prompted the Vice-Chairman to reject the bid given by the appellants. No other record has been produced before the Court to show that the decision of the Vice-Chairman was based on rational and tangible reasons and was in public interest. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the decision of the concerned authority was wholly arbitrary. The learned Single Judge without property appreciating the nature of the appellants' challenge to the rejection of their bid, dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench also committed the same error by dismissing the appeal. Therefore, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside, writ petition filed by the appellants before the High Court is allowed and the decision of the Vice-Chairman, D.D.A. to reject the bid of the appellants is quashed. The appellants are directed to deposit the amount of bid along with the interest thereon at the rate of eighteen per cent from the date of bid till the date of actual payment within a period of three months from today. Thereafter the D.D.A. shall complete all the formalities of land and hand over possession to the appellants. The needful be done within three months from the date the amount is deposited by the appellants."
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 0 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

C. K. Achuthan vs The State Of Kerala And Others on 11 December, 1958

"24. .....It is true that the government may enter into a contract with any reason but in so doing the State or its instrumentalities cannot act arbitrarily. In the instant case, tenders were invited and the appellant and respondent 4 submitted their tenders. The tenders were to be adjudged on their own intrinsic merits in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender notice. The learned counsel, however, placed reliance on C.K. Achuthan V. State of Kerala, where Hidayatullah, J., as he then was, held that a contract which is held from government stands, on no different footing from the contract held by a private party and when one person is chosen rather than another, the aggrieved party cannot claim protection of Article 14."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 95 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors vs Om Prakash Sharma on 18 April, 2013

15. This Court in Om Prakash Sharma case has held that in the absence of a concluded contract which takes place by issuance of allotment letter, suit could not be said to be maintainable as there is no vested right in the plaintiff without approval of the bid by the competent authority. Thus, in the wake of aforesaid decision, in the absence of a concluded contract, the suit could not have been decreed for mandatory injunction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 115 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Rajasthan Housing Board And Another vs G.S. Investments And Another on 31 October, 2006

The learned Senior Counsel has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Rajasthan Housing Board case [Rajasthan Housing Board v. G.S. Investments, (2007) 1 SCC 477] which reads as under: (SCC p. 483, para 9) '9. This being the settled legal position, the respondent acquired no right to claim that the auction be concluded in its favour and the High Court clearly erred in entertaining the writ petition and in not only issuing a direction for consideration of the representation but also issuing a further direction to the appellant to issue a demand note of the balance amount. The direction relating to issuance of the demand note for balance amount virtually amounted to confirma- tion of the auction in favour of the respondent which was not the function of the High Court.'
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 165 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram on 29 September, 1969

For the same reason, reliance of petitioners on judgment in Kalu Ram Ahuja (supra) would be of no avail. In that case, Apart from absence of reasons for rejecting the highest bid in the cancellation order, no records were placed before the Court to demonstrate that the decision was based on rational and tangible reasons and that the decision was in public interest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 59 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1   2 Next