KAHC010026042017_1
9 Mar 2018...
Search Results for "Delhi Development Authority"
3220 result(s) found
Found 3220 result(s)
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Allows Appeal by Development Authority in Land Acquisition Lapse Dispute. Acquisition Does Not Lapse Under Section 24(2) as Possession Was Taken, Despite Non-Payment of Compensation, Following Constitution Bench Ruling in Indore Development Authority.
19 Apr 2023The dispute arose from a land acquisition matter where the Delhi Development Authority appealed against a High Court judgment that declared the acquis...
- 476
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Recovery of Contractual Dues from Private Company. Disputed Questions of Fact Regarding Outstanding Amount Under Housekeeping Contract Cannot Be Adjudicated Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
19 Sep 2006The petitioners, Fancy Rehabilitation Trust and its Managing Trustee, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking rec...
- 60
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Land Acquisition Case, Quashing High Court's Lapse Declaration. The Court held that acquisition proceedings did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as physical possession was taken, and the writ petitioner failed to establish ownership and title required for challenging the acquisition.
20 Jan 2023The dispute arose from a land acquisition case where the Delhi Development Authority appealed against a High Court judgment that declared the acquisit...
- 106
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Allows Government Appeal Against Declaration of Lapsed Land Acquisition Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Possession Taken Prior to Act's Commencement Precludes Deemed Lapse Despite Non-Payment of Compensation.
28 Apr 2023The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court which declared that the acquisition of land in question had lapse...
- 161
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeal Challenging Withdrawal of Labour Welfare Cess Exemption for SEZ Developers. The court held that the exemption was a concession and could be withdrawn by the government, and the appellant had no vested right to its continuation.
20 Mar 2013The appellant, M/s. Primal Projects Limited, a company engaged in constructing and developing IT parks in Special Economic Zones (SEZ), challenged the...
- 52
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Appointment of Arbitrator in Procurement Dispute — Government Department Cannot Unilaterally Rescind Contract After L1 Bidder Declared. The court held that the existence of an arbitration clause in tender documents is sufficient for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, leaving the issue of contract formation to the arbitrator.
10 Dec 2018The applicant, Jaina Marketing & Associates, a partnership firm, filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 199...
- 56
Supreme Court
Public Interest Prevails Over Private Rights: : BIADA vs M/s Scope Sales Pvt Ltd (2026 INSC 89)
23 Jan 2026The case arose when the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) allotted land to M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. for commercial use. Subsequentl...
- 383
High Court
High Court of Bombay Dismisses BSNL's Petition Challenging Facilitation Council's Jurisdiction Under MSMED Act — Arbitration Agreement Not Barred by Section 18 of MSMED Act. The court held that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, being a special statute, overrides the arbitration agreement between the parties, and the Facilitation Council has jurisdiction to refer the dispute to arbitration.
31 Mar 2015The petitioner, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), a Central Public Sector Enterprise, entered into agreements with respondent No. 2, M/s. People Infoc...
- 132
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Hears State's Appeal Against Quashing of Acquisition of Part of Building Without Land Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court Held That Acquisition of a Portion of a Building Without Acquiring the Land Beneath It is Invalid.
1 Jan 1970The State of Maharashtra appealed against a common judgment of the High Court dated 10.3.2006 in two writ petitions filed by Reliance Industries Ltd. ...
- 63
