advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
banjara hills
SAUGHT EXEMPTION FROM URBAN LAND CEILING FOR DONATION, LATER WITHDRAWN BY THE GOVT. AND LATER ALLOTTED THE SAME ON CONSIDERATION TO THE SAME PROPOSED DONEE UNDER SEC.23 [4] OF ACT, SO THE DONEE BECOMES ABSOLUTE OWNER BUT NOT DONEE= We are of the considered opinion that, since the Appellant-Society has become the absolute owner of the land by virtue of the order dated 13.02.2006 passed by the State Government, the Appellant- Society is at liberty to use the property in question to its benefit and advantage and the Writ Court, therefore, was not justified in making certain observations, which would come in the way of Appellant-Society in utilizing the land to its maximum advantage. 16. In the result, while allowing this appeal, we set aside the following observations made by the High Court in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment and order: “…Accordingly, we can only direct M/s. Indo Arab league to strictly adhere to the laws applicable for the purpose of making any construction and as per the undertaking given by it in paragraph – 5 of their counter affidavit. The construction made also shall not be alienated in any manner, but have to be used only for cultural or religious purpose.”
‘ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5615 of 2007) INDO ARAB LEAGUE Appellant THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VERSUS A.FAIZUDDIN & ORS. Respondents O R D E R 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. This appeal by special leave is directed … Continue reading
2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent/complainant had ordered for supply and installation of two Vesta brand modular kitchens in the two houses owned by her. The cost of these modular kitchens was negotiated at Rs.5,15,000/-. The respondent/ complainant had ordered for one modular kitchen of Start-Rovera Moro/Bianco Model/Finish with the carcass of Matt White and the other was to be Ginger Prugna/Grigio Cordo, Ciligeo carcass. The installation as per the agreement entered into between the parties was to be completed within 120 days from the date of the final payment. The case of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum was that the petitioner had not only failed to installed the modular kitchen within the agreed period of 120 days from the date of the final payment which was 17th of July, 2007 but it had also failed to provide the specified modular kitchen for the second house. The colour scheme selected by the respondent/complainant was not the same as painted by the petitioner/opposite party. The complaint had been contested by the petitioner before the District Forum, who, as stated above, did not find any merit in the complaint and dismissed the same. The State Commission on the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant, however, found that the District Forum had misdirected itself in believing that the petitioner had supplied the modular kitchen as ordered by the respondent/complainant and that too in time. The District Forum appears to have been swayed by the allegation of the petitioner that the husband of the respondent/complainant had tried to intimidate the petitioner’s employees, for which criminal complaints had been filed by both the parties. However, on a proper analysis of the terms of the agreement and the facts with regard to the supply and installation of the modular kitchen, the State Commission found that there indeed has been deficiency on part of the petitioner in providing the appropriate modular kitchen and in installing the same in time and, therefore, has awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/- with a cost of Rs.2000/-.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 234 OF 2012 [Against the order dated 28.07.2011 in First Appeal No. 951 of 2009 of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad] M/s Carpenters Classic India (P) Ltd. Unit No. 8-2-596/V/G-A, Ground Floor IVRCL Towers, Road No. 10 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34 … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 