REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

POONAM VERMA Appellant

V/S

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

J.R. RAGHUPATHY AND OTHERS V. STATE OF A.P. [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA KUMAR MAHESHWARI V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM PARKASH BANSAL AND OTHERS V. L.I.C. OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. K P JOSEPH [REFERRED TO]
RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY VS. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAO SAHIB SHRI BHIM SINGHJI ANANTALAKSHMI PATHABI RAMASHRRMA YOTURI JODHAN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CO PRIVATE LIMITED RAJENDRA GARG SHAMSHUL ISLAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
P M ASHWATHANARAYANA SETTY LAVINA MANSIONS A ABDUL RAHIM SHERIF G RAMIAH CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL STATE BANK OF INDIA BANK OF BARODA S MOHMOOD IQBAL STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DR PRAFULLA CHANDRA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA KUMAR MAHESHWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. KAILASH CHAND MAHAJAN [REFERRED TO]
J P BANSAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
M P GANGADHARAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRAVESH SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
HARJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Respondent is an authority created under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"). The Act was enacted to provide for the development of Delhi according to plan and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto.

(3.) Appellants did not respond to the said notice. Despite the same allegedly they had been allotted Category- III flats. They were called upon to pay the price specified therefor and to take delivery thereof. They declined to do so. They asked their names to be included in the VI and VI-A Self Financing Schemes which were issued later on. Respondent did not agree thereto.

Click here to view full judgment.

POONAM VERMA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address