Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.62 seconds)Section 201 in The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Shri Ajit Singh And Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority on 5 September, 2005
Similarly in Shri Ajit Singh Vs.
Delhi Development Authority MANU/DE/1139/2005 this Court also held
that persons who are being allotted plots under a scheme cannot plead any
assurance.
Delhi State Industrial And ... vs Yashpal Madan And Ors. [Along With 1014, ... on 22 February, 2008
The Division Bench again in Delhi State Industrial and
Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs. Yashpal Madan 148 (2008)
DLT 642 in the case of a scheme of relocation as in the present case held
that allotment could only be according to price determined from time to
time.
Ramanand Prasad Singh & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 March, 1996
In Ramanand Vs. Union of India 1993 (26) DRJ 594 the Full Bench
of this Court held that it is the premium calculated at the time prevailing
when firm offer of allotment is made by DDA that would properly constitute
the consideration for concluding a valid contract between the parties.
Delhi Development Authority vs Pushpendra Kumar Jain on 23 September, 1994
The
price of land prevailing at the time of communication of the letter of
allotment is the rate payable by an allottee as held in DDA Vs. Pushpender
Kumar Jain 1994 Supplement (3) SCC 494. The reason for this principle
has been stated that in case the allottee is not willing to take or accept the
allotment at the rates, it is always open to him to decline the allotment.
Premji Bhai Parmar & Others Etc vs Delhi Development Authority & Others on 21 December, 1979
19. The Supreme Court in Premji Bhai Parmar Vs. Delhi Development
Authority (1980) 2 SCC 129 and Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited Vs.
Union of India 1990 (3) SCC 223 has held that it is not the function of the
Court to sit in judgment and interfere in price fixation matters or over such
matters of economic policy and it must be left to the government to decide
the same.
Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 1990
19. The Supreme Court in Premji Bhai Parmar Vs. Delhi Development
Authority (1980) 2 SCC 129 and Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited Vs.
Union of India 1990 (3) SCC 223 has held that it is not the function of the
Court to sit in judgment and interfere in price fixation matters or over such
matters of economic policy and it must be left to the government to decide
the same.
Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. & Ors vs Vardan Linkers & Ors on 15 April, 2008
21. The Supreme Court recently in Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited
Vs. Vardan Linkers (2008) 12 SCC 500 held that if the dispute was
considered as purely one relating to existence of an agreement, that is,
whether there was a concluded contract, the Civil Court ought to have been
approached and when a writ petition is filed in regard to a contractual
dispute, the issue is whether the authorities had acted arbitrarily or
unreasonably and the issue whether there was a concluded contract becomes
secondary.
M.P. Housing Board vs Anil Kumar Khiwani on 14 March, 2005
The Supreme Court in M.P. Housing Board Vs. Anil Kumar
Khiwani (2005) 10 SCC 796 also held that time has come when the Courts
should be slow in interfering with schemes which are based on costing.