Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)M/S. Urban Improvement Company (P) Ltd. ... vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 3 May, 1993
23. As also rightly submitted by Mr. Kalra, the agreement between
the parties stood crystallized by virtue of the exemption order dated
05.04.1982. The demand thereafter through communications dated
20.04.1988 and 07.01.1992 was a unilateral act and the petitioner never
accepted the same. The petitioner in fact challenged the same by filing Civil
Writ Petition No. 2555 of 1991. The same were quashed by the order and
judgment of this Court dated 03.05.1993 in Urban Development Co. (P) Ltd.
v. State of Haryana 1993(2) PLR 317 (supra). This part of this order has not
been disturbed by the order and judgment of the Supreme Court dated
06.10.1994. We are bound by the same. No claim, therefore, can be made on
the basis of the said communications.
Section 408 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975
Section 7 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Jai Chand And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 July, 2014
7. The Haryana Restrictions of (Development and Regulation of
Colonies) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1971 Act') was enacted
on 16.11.1971. Respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner to submit fresh
plans and to apply for fresh licences under the 1971 Act. The Petitioner's
application for permission/licence pursuant thereto was granted on
08.08.1973. However, the 1971 Act was held ultra-vires by a Division Bench
of this Court in Jai Chand Bhagat and another v. The State of Haryana and
others 1975 PLR 277. The above judgment was affirmed by the Supreme
Court.
1