SIDDARTH ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR. SUNIL RATILAL SHAH vs ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY — C.A. No. 1383/2007
Case under Section III. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010024242006
Filing Date
24-Jan-2006
Registration No
C.A. No. 1383/2007
Diary Number
2424/2006
Order Date
09-Aug-2017
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 17-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SIDDARTH ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR. SUNIL RATILAL SHAH
Adv. GAURAV AGRAWAL (Dead / Retired / Elevated)
Respondent(s)
-
1.ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
Adv. NISHANT RAMAKANTRAO KATNESHWARKAR ASHA GOPALAN NAIR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Aug-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Aug-2017
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
-
14-Feb-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Feb-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Nov-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Nov-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Nov-2016
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Sep-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Sep-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Apr-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Apr-2016
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Apr-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Mar-2016
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Mar-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Mar-2016
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Mar-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Jan-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Jan-2016
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Jan-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Jan-2011
ROPView PDF
-
13-Mar-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Dec-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Nov-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Apr-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Feb-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Jan-2006
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 1383/2007
Case Summary: Siddarth Enterprises v. Additional Collector (C.A. 1383/2007) The Supreme Court dismissed Siddarth Enterprises' appeal on August 9, 2017, rejecting its argument that obligations under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 should be deleted from the lower court order. The Court held that exemption under the Act was independent of price revision, and once the appellant benefited from the exemption and undertook development, it remained bound by the statutory obligations despite the Act's subsequent repeal. The Court directed the respondent to enforce the obligation in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts