KAHC010159832015_1
15 Dec 2017...
Search Results for "Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2005"
308 result(s) found
Found 308 result(s)
Supreme Court
"Landmark Judgment on Property Rights and Public Welfare in Mumbai" "Balancing property ownership with the collective good under India's constitutional framework."
5 Nov 2024The Supreme Court examined whether Chapter VIII-A of the MHADA Act aligns with the principles of Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution, which aims ...
- 760
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes SRA Acquisition Notice for Church Land, Upholds Owner's Preferential Right to Redevelop Slum. The Court held that the owner of slum land has a preferential right to redevelop the land under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority cannot acquire the land for a private developer without considering the owner's proposal.
11 Jun 2024The petitioner, a public trust managing Mount Mary's Church in Bandra, Mumbai, owned land admeasuring 9371.30 sq. meters, out of which 1596.40 sq. met...
- 505
High Court
- 49
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Allows Union of India's Appeals in Excise Incentive Withdrawal Case — Policy Change Upheld as Prospective and in Public Interest. The Court held that the impugned notification was not retrospective and promissory estoppel did not bar the government from modifying the incentive scheme for Kutch industries.
1 Jan 2020The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Union of India against the common judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which had quashed Notificatio...
- 185
High Court
Bombay High Court Adjudicates Section 34 Petition Against Arbitral Award on Termination and Repudiation of Master Asset Purchase Agreement. Arbitrator's Finding of Repudiation by Purchaser and Direction for Refund of Consideration under MAPA Considered.
10 May 2013The dispute arose from a Master Asset Purchase Agreement (MAPA) dated 31st March 2005 between Siddhivinayak Realties Pvt. Ltd. as purchaser and V Hote...
- 24
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Examines Validity of Notification Imposing Forest Development Tax under Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 — Multiple Mining Companies Challenge the Levy as Ultra Vires the Constitution and Forest Laws.
3 Dec 2015The matter involved a batch of writ petitions filed before the High Court of Karnataka by various mining companies, individuals, and an industry assoc...
- 32
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Hears Consolidated Writ Petitions Challenging Forest Development Tax Imposed on Mining Operations — Petitions Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India Seek to Declare Notification Ultra Vires and Quash Demand Notices. The petitioners contended that Section 98A of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the Notification dated 16.08.2008 were unconstitutional and not applicable to mining leases on non-forest lands.
3 Dec 2015The High Court of Karnataka heard a batch of writ petitions filed by various mining companies, individuals, and an industry association challenging th...
- 43
High Court
Bombay High Court Hears Challenge to Constitutional Validity of Rule 13.3.1.5 of Pune Development Control Rules Allowing Municipal Takeover of Private Open Spaces for ₹1 Compensation. Petitioners Claim Violation of Right to Property under Article 300A and Lack of Statutory Basis in BPMC Act.
6 May 2026Five writ petitions were filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 13.3.1.5 of the Development Control Rules ...
- 16
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal of Co-operative Society in Rent Control Ejectment Suit — Society Not Entitled to Protection Under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 as Paid-up Capital Exceeds Rs.1 Crore. Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Try Suit for Ejectment Where Tenant is Exempted from Rent Act.
25 Apr 2024The dispute pertains to a suit property located on the first floor of a building in Kolhapur, originally owned by Ramrao Mahadev Misal and leased to S...
- 109
