Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the aizawl development authority amendment act 2008 Page 1 of about 25,357 results (0.689 seconds)

Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 2827 Vs. Gbi Realty Pte L ...

Court : Singapore Supreme Court

..... gbi realty engaged boustead to design and construct the development.1 on 31 march 2003, a temporary occupation permit ("top") was issued in respect of the development.2 the subsidiary proprietors likely took possession of the development soon after the top was issued.3 on 10 november 2003, the mcst was constituted. ..... case authority has interpreted fraudulent concealment under s 29(1)(b) of the act to include "unconscionability in the form of a deliberate act of concealment of a right of action by the wrongdoer" [emphasis added] (chua teck chew robert v goh eng wah [2009] 4 ..... the first scenario, the limitation period stops running only when the amended writ is served on the second defendant under the roc whereas in the second scenario, the limitation period stops running when the ..... the minutes of that meeting stated the mcst would "seek [sim law practice's] opinion on m/s boustead project's reply that they were no longer liable for any defects".13 the minutes of the next mcst council meeting on 4 november 2008 stated that the mcst would "liaise with [sim law practice] to issue out the legal letter by 10 december 2008 ..... 2008, the mcst wrote to boustead complaining of the "perennial sinking driveway problem".8 the cc report was appended to the ..... attention that in lian kok hong v ow wah foong and another [2008] 4 slr(r) 165 ("lian kok hong"), the court of appeal held (at [14]) that "s 24a carves out certain exceptions to s 6(1)(a) and, as such, the two cannot apply concurrently". 23. .....

Lucknow Development Authority. Vs. Shyam Kapoor.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... when the revision petition was listed before the national commission for the first time on 02.02.2012, the counsel representing the lucknow development authority sought an adjournment, to place on record of the revision petition, all the orders passed by the state commission, during the period the appeal preferred by the lucknow development authority had remained pending with it. ..... dissatisfied with the effect of the order of the state commission dated 11.5.2007, which had resulted in dismissal of the appeal preferred by the lucknow development authority before the state commission, the appellant chose to file a revision petition before the national consumer disputes redressal commission, new delhi (hereinafter referred to as the national commission). ..... before amendment, against dismissal of any case by the commission, the consumer had to rush to this court. ..... if the petitioner thought that the impugned order passed was illegal or without jurisdiction, it ought to have challenged the same immediately or within the prescribed period rather than waiting to challenge the same until notice under section 27 of the consumer protection act, was issued to the petitioner in execution proceedings. ..... the amendment in section 22 and introduction of section 22a were done for the convenience of the consumers. .....

Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Shyam Kapoor

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... when the revision petition was listed before the national commission for the first time on 02.02.2012, the counsel representing the lucknot development authority sought an adjournment, to place on record of the revision petition, all the orders passed by the state commission, during the period the appeal preferred by the lucknot development authority had remained pending with it. ..... dissatisfied with the effect of the order of the state commission dated 11.5.2007, which had resulted in dismissal of the appeal preferred by the lucknot development authority before the state commission, the appellant chose to file a revision petition before the national consumer disputes redressal commission, new delhi (hereinafter referred to as the national commission ). ..... before amendment, against dismissal of any case by the commission, the consumer had to rush to this court. ..... if the petitioner thought that the impugned order passed was illegal or without jurisdiction, it ought to have challenged the same immediately or within the prescribed period rather than waiting to challenge the same until notice under section 27 of the consumer protection act, was issued to the petitioner in execution proceedings. ..... the amendment in section 22 and introduction of section 22a were done for the convenience of the consumers. .....

Urban Development Authority Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

..... we are of the opinion that although there is no enabling provision in the karnataka urban development authorities act, 1987, for exclusion of the period during which there was an interim order operating against the authority, yet keeping in view the scheme of the act and the purpose underlying the provisions of section 27 which prescribes the time-limit for the implementation of the scheme, the period during which any interim or final orders passed by a competent court prevented the implementation of the scheme shall have to be excluded while reckoning the total period within which the scheme had ..... it was at this stage that the authorities amended the scheme and restricted the same to a lesser area measuring nearly 36 acres only. ..... if the power available to the authority under sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of section 19 of the act is understood, to confer upon it the competence to make any amendment at any stage within a period of 5 years, so as to renew the validity of the scheme for another period of 5 years from the date of such amendment, such power may and is most likely to be abused by the authority by resorting to repeated amendments whether or not the same are necessary only with a view to overcome the difficulty arising from the period stipulated for implementation of the scheme under section 27. ..... does any such fresh notification signifying the amendment or improvement of the scheme, provide to the scheme framed by the authority a fresh lease of life? .....

The State of Maharashtra Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR65; 2009(1)MhLj856

..... development authority (supra), the supreme court had stated the principle that where a question in relation to amendments are allowed are not put up in issue before the high court in specific terms, then the court particularly when a party has a right to challenge an order otherwise or in any case in memorandum of appeal even if it was not appealable and once the order permitted amendment is neither specifically challenged nor taken up in the grounds of memorandum of appeal, the appellate court will not interefere with such a plea.43. in the light of ..... despite liberal construction of application of law of amendment in appeals before the court of competent jurisdiction, we are called upon to determine the issue, as to whether the provisions of order 6 rule 17 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 are applicable to the proceedings including the appeal proceedings arising under the land acquisition act, 1894 and if the answer is in the affirmative, what is the scope and limitation of such application. ..... bhoir) on 14th march 2008, to argue that the claimants are entitled to amend their pleadings in the appeal in relation to factual matrix as well as enhancing the claim of compensation made by them in their petition under section 18 of the act before the collector. .....

Sitaram Balu Bhopi Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2008(4)MhLj9

..... as held by the apex court in case of ghaziabad development authority (supra) there is no prohibition against filing a petition for amendment of the claim application under section 18 of the said act with regard to the quantum of compensation claimed as there is nothing in the said act which is inconsistent with the power to allow the amendment.18. ..... the apex court has already held in case of gaziabad development authority (supra) that there is no bar under the said act to file a petition for amendment of the claim application in regard to quantum of compensation. ..... the learned advocate for the claimant has placed reliance on the decision of the apex court in case of ghaziabad development authority v. ..... it is contended that after the expiry of the period provided under section 18 of the said act for filing a reference application, an amendment to the reference application and consequently to the appeal or to the cross-objection cannot be permitted inasmuch as there is no power vesting in any authority to extend the period of limitation provided under section 18 of the said act for filing a reference application. ..... 3914 of 2008 is rejected.v) prayer (a) will be considered at the stage of final hearing of the appeal. .....

Tamil Nadu Housing Board and ors. Vs. Sea Shore Apartments Owners Welf ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2008SC1151; 2008(1)AWC514(SC); (2008)1CompLJ260(SC); I(2008)CPJ45(SC); 2008(1)CTC245; [2008(1)JCR168(SC)]; JT2008(1)SC318; (2008)2MLJ278(SC); 2008(3)RLR2073; 2008LABIC2038; 2008(2)ICC8; 2008AIRSCW1080; 2008(3)CivilLJ7; 2008(2)KCCRSN102; 2008(1)SCALE201

..... considering the provisions of the act, the national commission held that the consumer commission had no jurisdiction to go into the question of pricing of houses and plots, sold or allotted on hire purchase system by the development authority or housing board. ..... even if they were of the view that after the amendment of the act in 1993 and in the light of inclusion of 'housing construction' within the meaning of 'service' in clause (o) of section 2(1), the commission had jurisdiction to deal with and decide disputes relating to deficiency in service under the act which included the issues raised, it was obligatory on them to consider whether the controversy raised in the proceedings with regard to fixation of price would be justiciable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly in the light of the contentions raised by the board that there was increase in plinth ..... since the original complaints were filed in 1995, the state commission will give priority to the cases and decide them as expeditiously as possible preferably before june 30, 2008.30. .....

Rahman Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2003(1)AWC426; (2003)1UPLBEC416

..... paul, learned counsel for the allahabad development authority has submitted that the writ petition at the instance of the present petitioner rahman siddiqui is not maintainable as neither he is owner of the land, which had been acquired nor he is a person interested within the meaning of section 3(b) of the act. ..... the collector in the impugned order dated 1.2.2001, has held that as the opportunity of hearing was not given to the allahabad development authority before making the award dated 11.10.2000, there was violation of section 50(2) of the act and consequently, the award was liable to be set aside. ..... in view of these authoritative pronouncements, there can be no manner of doubt that the allahabad development authority had a right to appear before the collector and adduce evidence and in the event of denial of such a right conferred by section 50(2) on account of failure of the special land acquisition officer to serve a notice, it could approach the collector for setting aside the award which was made ex parte against it. ..... by way of an amendment application, the petitioner has also sought quashing of the award dated 5.2.2001 and a direction to the respondents to grant him compensation, as per judicial determination dated 31.5.2002 in l.a.r. no. .....

Pritam Singh Vs. Registrar of Firm and Society and Anr.

Court : Delhi

..... 2.3 the record shows that upon an inquiry being carried out by the ros, it came to light that in respect of wadbagh singh society, a lease deed dated 08.02.2012 has been executed by the delhi development authority (dda). ..... the petitioner, as indicated above, who was at the relevant time, the president of the said society, has approached this court under article 226 of the constitution to assail the order dated 27.09.2012, on a short ground, which is that, ros had no power under the societies registration act, 1860 (in short sra), to cancel the cor accorded in favour of the wadbagh singh society.4. ..... 4.1 it is, on perusal of the provisions of the sra, that it is discovered, that the, power to cancel registration accorded or, certificate of renewal issued, on the ground that it has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud - is available, under a state amendment carried out by the state of u.p. ..... having heard the learned counsels for the parties, i am of the view that the impugned order passed by the ros cannot be sustained for the following reasons: (i) clearly, there is no power available with the ros to cancel the registration. ..... (ii) there is nothing brought to my notice, which would show that the documents furnished at the time when the application for registration was made by the wadbagh singh society were fraught with any defect. .....

Mr. Barun Kumar Nahar Vs. Parul Nahar and anr.

Court : Delhi

..... indore development authority v. ..... one can also not lose sight of the fact that none of the statutes which deal with the rights of a married woman in india, be it the hindu marriage act, 1955; the hindu succession act, 1956; the hindu adoption and maintenance act, 1956; the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 or the code criminal procedure, 1973 maintenance including residence for confer any right of the married woman as against the parents of the husband. ..... counsel also argued that the amended application under order 39 rule 1 & 2 cpc is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the amendment envisaged under order 6 rule 17, cpc relates to the amendment of pleadings, which includes the plaint and the written statement, and not the amendment of applications under order 39 rule 1 and 2 filed by the parties.14. ..... along with the amended suit the plaintiff also filed a fresh application under order39 rule 1 & 2, cpc for the grant of interim mandatory injunction to seek a direction to the defendant no.1 to vacate the subject premises till the final disposal of the suit.5. ..... kanta mittal reported in 152 (2008) dlt 69.and the relevant paras of the same are reproduced as under:8. ... ..... kanta mittal, 152 (2008) dlt 69.4. .....