Search Results for "ostensible owner"

75 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 75 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Allows Second Appeal in Mortgage Redemption Case — Concurrent Findings Set Aside for Ignoring Material Evidence and Misreading Documents. Mortgage by Conditional Sale Held Not Extinguished by Mere Delay; Right to Redeem Survives Under Section 60 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The appellant (original plaintiff) filed a suit for redemption of mortgage of a shop in Borsad, Anand. The plaintiff had executed two mortgage by cond...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Refusal to Register Settlement Deed Due to Non-Application of Mind by Sub-Registrar. Sub-Registrar's Refusal Based on Missing Original Sale Deed and Non-Mutation of Revenue Records Held Invalid Under Section 35 of Registration Act, 1908.

The petitioner, Sorkathkani, and her husband purchased a property measuring 2.5 cents in Shenkottai Town through a registered sale deed dated 2003 (Do...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction Decree Against Tenants for Default in Rent Payment, Dismisses Landlords' Cross-Appeal on Subletting. The Court held that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were direct tenants of the Plaintiffs and not sub-tenants, and decreed eviction solely on ground of default in payment of rent.

The case involves cross proceedings between the landlords (Plaintiffs) and the tenants (Defendant Nos. 2 and 3) concerning a suit premises in Pune. Th...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Under Section 163-A MV Act — Insurer Liable Despite Alleged Licence Violation. Claim under Section 163-A is no-fault liability; insurer cannot avoid payment on ground of driver lacking licence.

The case arises from a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the legal representatives of Babasaheb Wankhede, wh...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Notice of Motion for Interim Relief in Specific Performance Suit Due to Non-Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. Plaintiffs Failed to Make Out Prima Facie Case for Appointment of Receiver or Injunction.

The plaintiffs, M/s. Pride Associates and others, filed a suit for specific performance of an Agreement for Sale dated 4th June 2005 for a property in...