Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: delhi development act 1957 appendix 2 · Page 1 of about 236 results (0.057 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Apr 30 1992

Ravindra Properties Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-30-1992

Subject : Property

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226; Punjab Municipal Act, 1991 - Sections 193(2); Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Sections 11A

Reported in : 47(1992)DLT538; 1992(23)DRJ270

Matched in: Court Delhi

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 11 2015

Mcd Vs. Bharat Bhushan Jain

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-11-2015

Subject : Land Acquisition

Matched in: Court Delhi

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 11 2016

M/s. Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Trust Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-11-2016

Subject : Land Acquisition

Matched in: Court Delhi

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Oct 06 2009

K. NooruddIn and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its Sec ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-06-2009

Subject : Property

Acts : Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 3(5), 4, 4(1), 5A, 6, 6(A), 40 and 41, ;Companies Act, 1956; Delhi Development Act, 1957; Constitution of India - Articles 12, 14, 162, 226 and 300

Reported in : 2009(6)ALT146

have been initiated in the absence of Master Plan or Zonal Plan, considering the relevant provisions of the Delhi Development Act 1957 the Court held that the proceedings did not get vitiate in the absence of such Plan.71. In fact … a Revenue Mandal or for location of its Headquarters keeping in view the broad guidelines laid down in Appendix I to the White Paper. It must be stated that the guidelines had no statutory force and they … filed and the material placed before this Court.8. W.P. No. 8014 of 2008 is filed praying for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 01 2001

M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and ors. M/S. Delhi Development Authorit ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-01-2001

Subject : Environment

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 14; Delhi Development Act, 1957

Reported in : AIR2001SC1544; (2001)2CompLJ236(SC); JT2001(3)SC207; 2001(2)SCALE309; (2001)4SCC577; [2001]2SCR234

matter of fact, the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plans having statutory recognition in terms of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, paragraphs and (d) as noticed above under the title Work centers industry ought to be given its full … community need and it is in this context also that Mr. Gopal Subramaniam drew our attention to the Appendix to the Zonal Development Plan pertaining to area 'G'. We are however unable to accede to such a … key questions as mentioned in the petition shall have to be considered. 2. Incidentally, some entrepreneurs also moved certain other Interlocutory Applications, we do deem

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 07 2005

Devender Kandhari Vs. Dda

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-07-2005

Subject : CivilProperty

Acts : Delhi Development Authority (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations 1968; Sections 57 of the Delhi Development Act 1957 - Regulations 2(13), 7 and 13

Reported in : 129(2006)DLT243

Matched in: Court Delhi

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 08 1995

A.M. Krishnamurthy Vs. Sokab Products Private Limited by Its Executive ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-08-1995

Subject : Property Civil

Reported in : (1996)1MLJ218

reason described in that clause is, that excavating minor mineral is governed by Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder Section 4 of the said Act says that 'No person shall undertake any … not sufficient for the grant of injunction.45. The Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi : [1993]3SCR522 , has considered this point and held thus:A party is not entitled to an order of … these rules. The agreement shall be in the form set out in Appendix V to these rules.35. Rule 34 reads thus:34. Agreements to be registered: … ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is by the defendant in O.S. No. 278 of 1994, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Tindivanam.2. The suit

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 29 2000

Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-29-2000

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India Articles 12, 32 and 226

Reported in : 2000IVAD(Delhi)342; 86(2000)DLT246

Matched in: Citation 2000IVAD(Delhi)342; 86(2000)DLT246

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 20 1986

M.C. Mehta and Another Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-20-1986

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 12, 15(2), 17, 21, 23, 24, 32, 32(1), 32(2) and 226

Reported in : I(1987)ACC157; AIR1987SC1086; (1987)1CompLJ99(SC); JT1987(1)SC1; 1986(2)SCALE1188; (1987)1SCC395; 1986Supp(1)SCC562; [1987]1SCR819; 1987 (1) SCC 895; MANU/SC/0092/1986

also required to obtain a licence for its manufacturing activities from the Municipal authorities under the Delhi Municipal Act, 1957. It is subject to extensive environment regulation under the Water (Prevention and Control) of Pollution Act, 1974 and … interest. Special emphasis was laid by counsel for the applicants on the regulatory mechanism provided under the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951 where industries are included in the schedule if they vitally affect public interest. Regulatory … the private sector. Schedule B to the Resolution enumerated the industries. 22. Appendix I to the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1948 dealing with the problem of … raised involved substantial questions of law relating to the interpretation of Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution, the case should be referred to a

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 08 1993

Tarun Bharat Sangh Vs. U.O.i. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-08-1993

Subject : Environment

Acts : Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Sections 2; Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules - Rule 4(6)

Reported in : JT1993(3)SC1; 1993(2)SCALE441; 1993Supp(1)SCC4; [1993]3SCR21

notifications issued under the Rajasthan Forest Act, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. It is submitted that the Forest (Conservation) Act applies not only to reserve and protected forest but to … sworn to by Sri S.P. Singh, Deputy Director in the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Project Tiger, New Delhi has been filed. It is stated in the affidavit that the area declared as project tiger/tiger reserve is … may be called.7. As per the said Report, 215 mines mentioned in appendix-A to the Report fall completely within the areas declared as protected forest … notification dated January 1, 1975 issued by the Rajasthan Government under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act. This demarcation was felt necessary in view

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial