Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.48 seconds)
M/S. Gmr Ads vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 20 April, 2022 cites

Kapilaben vs Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth Through ... on 25 November, 2019

there cannot be waiver of any of the provisions of the Authorization Agreement nor consent for departure by any of the parties unless the same is in writing and signed it is not valid. He submits that the particular action of the respondents in straightaway issuing this notice is contrary to the said Agreement. He also relied on clause 11.2(h) of Article 11 and submits that the rights and interest of the petitioner in the project will pass to Respondents 2 to 4 after the transfer date which is on completion of the authorization period. Hence, it is submitted that the obligation of the parties to the agreement will be entangled between the parties and cannot be either transferred or assigned and cannot be transferred in a manner unknown to law. Learned Senior Counsel relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kapilaben v. Ashok Kumar Jyantilal Sheth Trough PoaGophalbhai Madhusudan Patel1 submits that the letter impugned in the Writ Petition is not only in violation of the Agreement but also unethical for the reason that the 5th respondent who is holding the post of Additional Commissioner (Advertisements), GHMC is also holding the post of The Director, Enforcement Vigilance and Disaster Management and he has levied several challans to the FOBs. 1 2019 SCC Online SC 1512 5 alleging the advertisement on the FOBs. as illegal in spite of the fact that the petitioner is having Authorization Agreement granted by Respondents 2 to 4. It is submitted that the 5th respondent was so prejudiced against the petitioner and started issuing challans on daily basis. The petitioner has challenged the said challans issued by the 5th respondent by filing several Writ Petitions before this Court. He submits that in spite of the categorical findings of the Hon'ble High Court, the 5th respondent is still continuing to issue challans on the very same ground. He submits that the action of the 2nd respondent in transferring / assigning the project FOBs. to the 5th respondent is completely in violation of the procedural impropriety where the decision-making authority has failed in its duty to act fairly. It is submitted that by the impugned proceedings, the Authorization Agreement is virtually being transferred to the 5th respondent and the same amounts to novation, hence, the petitioner has come before this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 7 - M M Shantanagoudar - Full Document

Maharashtra Land Development ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 11 November, 2010

with advertisements under a single wing, the 2nd respondent has instructed the 5th respondent to monitor the maintenance of the FOBs. with powers conferred under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. It is submitted that by transferring the administrative control to the Advertisement Wing, none of the provisions of the Authorization Agreement is violated or altered. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra Law Development Corporation v. State of Maharashtra2 and submitted that the Court will be concerned with the correctness of the decision rather than the method to reach such decision. He submits that the measures adopted by the respondents are proportionate to the pursued objective and through the impugned decision there is no effect on the rights, interests and liberties of the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 29 - M Sharma - Full Document

M/S Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 17 October, 2008

Further, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Sethi Auto Service Station v. Delhi Development Authority, 2 (2011) 15 SCC 616 8 learned Standing Counsel submits that by transfer of charge from Respondents 3 and 4 to the 5th respondent neither the rights and obligations under the Authorization Agreement are altered nor the petitioner was deprived of any benefit or advantage, hence, question of legitimate expectation does not arise. Learned Standing Counsel submits that absolutely there is no legal and tenable ground to interfere with the order impugned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 318 - D K Jain - Full Document
1