Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
14 judgments · newest first · showing 1–14
The petitioner, Omwati Widow, challenged a demolition order dated 3 April 2026 issued by the Noida Authority. The respondents argued that the appropriate remedy was a revision petition under Section 41(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, as empowered by Section 12 of …
The petitioner, Parmanand, filed a writ petition challenging a demolition notice dated 01‑09‑2023 and a subsequent order dated 28‑04‑2025 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Noida Authority, alleging that his structures were on unacquired land. Earlier, the Division Bench had directed the …
The Supreme Court examined land acquisition proceedings undertaken by the Uttar Pradesh government and YEIDA for the integrated development of the Yamuna Expressway and adjoining parcels. The landowners challenged the use of the urgency provisions under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land …
The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) claimed that it had submitted a claim of Rs 43.40 crore as a financial creditor against JNC Construction Ltd., but the resolution professional treated it as an operational creditor and the resolution plan approved by the NCLT omitted its …
The petitioner entered into a sale deed with NOIDA in 2001 that promised a 10% plot allocation. After ten years he made a representation to NOIDA, and eleven years after the deed filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking specific performance. The High Court entertained the petition, directed …
The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and the State of Uttar Pradesh sought to enhance the superannuation age of NOIDA employees from 58 to 60 years, issuing a government order on 30 September 2012 that applied prospectively. The Allahabad High Court set aside the order’s …
The Council of Architecture challenged NOIDA's Promotion Policy 2005, which allowed promotion to the post of Associate Architect without requiring a degree recognised by the Council. The issue was whether Section 37 of the Architects Act, 1972 bars unregistered persons from practising architectural …
The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), created under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, challenged income‑tax notices on the ground that it qualified as a "local authority" and was therefore exempt under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended by the …
The Supreme Court examined challenges to land acquisitions in Noida and Greater Noida made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the State invoked Section 17’s urgency provisions to dispense with the Section 5A objection right. The High Court had held the urgency invocation illegal but, …
The Supreme Court examined whether the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority could allow banks, nursing homes and other commercial activities in plots designated as residential under the Master Plan, lease deeds and the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. The appellants had let their …
The Noida Entrepreneurs Association filed a writ petition alleging that the former CEO of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), Shri Ravi Mathur, IAS, misused his position between 1993-94 by awarding contracts without tender, evading conversion charges, and illegally converting a …
The Supreme Court examined the acquisition of land for the Yamuna Expressway project, where the State of Uttar Pradesh, through YEIDA, acquired over 1,600 hectares for an expressway and 25 million square metres for five industrial parcels. Petitioners argued that the acquisition was not for a public …
Anil Kumar Srivastava challenged a NOIDA scheme to develop a commercial hub on a 54,320.18 sq m plot, alleging that the reserve price of Rs 27,500 per sq m was arbitrarily low and that the accepted bid of Rs 31,850 per sq m was undervalued, violating Article 14. The Court examined the distinction …
The appellants, owners of lands in village Chhalera Banger, challenged the Uttar Pradesh government's notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which invoked Section 17(4) to dispense with the mandatory Section 5‑A inquiry on the ground of urgency for planned industrial …
