Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)
Dua Polymers Pvt Ltd vs Dsidc & Anr on 19 August, 2010 cites

Sunil Dua vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 12 May, 2009

6. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, we have carefully perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The submission of Mr.Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellants, is that the direction issued by the Supreme Court not being mandatory and in the realm of discretion, the DSIDC should have condoned the delay and considered the application. On a perusal of the order passed in Sunil Dua (supra), it is evincible that a Division Bench of this Court had held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - N K Kaul - Full Document

Allahabad Bank Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 8 October, 1953

9. In our considered opinion, the said case is distinguishable on facts. The learned counsel for the appellants has also placed heavy reliance on the decision in Allahabad Bank v. State of West Bengal AIR 2007 SC (Supp) LPA 589/2010 & LPA 590/2010 Page 6 of 11 519 wherein the Apex Court took note of the fact that the delay itself in the said case, when the representations were made, would not have resulted in the dismissal of the writ petition in limine. On a scrutiny of the facts in the said case, it is perceivable that the High Court of Calcutta had issued the direction permitting the petitioners to submit several representations and when no decision was taken, the writ petition was filed, the same being imperative. We think it appropriate to reproduce paragraph 5 in entirety:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 27 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004

3. The factual exposition as discernible is that both the appellants had applied for the plot of the industrial land measuring 400 sq. metres in December 1996 under the re-allocation scheme and had deposited the earnest money. They were extended the benefit of allotment and in pursuance of the same, a letter of demand was sent by the DSIDC requiring them to deposit 30% of the revised estimated cost of the plot @ Rs.4,200/- per sq. metre after adjustment of the earnest money that had already been deposited. The first installment was required to be paid by 31 st October, 2000. The appellant, M/s Dua Polymers (Pvt.) Limited, did not comply with the same on the ground that the earnest money had already been deposited with DSIDC. Similar letter was issued by the appellant, namely, M/s Sanjay Plastic Industries. After writing such letter, as is evident from the order impugned, the appellants waited till 18th November, 2008 to approach this Court for redressal of their grievance. The learned Single Judge did not entertain the writ petition basically on the ground that the order of LPA 589/2010 & LPA 590/2010 Page 2 of 11 cancellation was passed against the appellants on 10th July, 2002 and they had approached the writ Court on 18th November, 2008 and, hence, the doctrine of delay and laches is squarely attracted to the case at hand. Additionally, the learned Single Judge referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India rendered on 12th September, 2000 directing that if payment is not made by any of the allottees on a demand being raised, their allotment shall stand cancelled and they shall have to close down the unit immediately.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 1765 - H K Sema - Full Document

Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company ... vs District Board Bhojpur And Ors on 12 March, 1992

7. In view of the aforesaid, it is evincible that a cut off date had been fixed. We do not intend to advert to the facet whether after the cut off date the application could have been entertained or not, inasmuch as that may be determined on the anvil of numerous facts. Keeping the said issue open, we are inclined to proceed whether in the obtaining factual matrix, the DSIDC has committed any illegality by cancelling the letter of allotment issued in favour of the appellants. It is urged by Mr. Gandhi that the only ground on which the learned Single Judge has actually dismissed the writ petition is delay and laches. He has drawn immense inspiration from the decision in M/s Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited (supra). In the said case, the Apex Court has opined that the dismissal of belated and stale claim under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a rule of law but a rule LPA 589/2010 & LPA 590/2010 Page 5 of 11 of practice. Their Lordships have observed that where the illegality is manifest in the order and the reason for not challenging the order is appositely explained, the delay in filing the writ petition should not be taken into consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 229 - M F Beevi - Full Document
1