Search Results for "Bombay Tenancy Act, 1948"

386 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 386 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition in Land Acquisition Case — Compensation Enhanced Due to Inadequate Market Value Assessment. Court Held That Reference Court Erred in Not Considering Comparable Sale Instances and Potential Value of Land for Development Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The case pertains to a writ petition filed by the legal representatives of the original claimant, Sahadeo Mahadik, challenging the judgment and award ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appellants' Second Appeal in Property Dispute, Upholding Concurrent Findings That Plaintiffs Failed to Prove Title and Possession. Suit for Possession and Mesne Profits Dismissed as Plaintiffs Did Not Discharge Burden of Proof Under Section 100 CPC.

The case involves two second appeals arising from a property dispute between the legal representatives of Balaji Ramaiya Manthanwar (appellants) and G...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

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.

The dispute arose from a Master Asset Purchase Agreement (MAPA) dated 31st March 2005 between Siddhivinayak Realties Pvt. Ltd. as purchaser and V Hote...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Allows Petition Seeking Certificate Under Section 63AA of Gujarat Tenancy Act for Industrial Land Purchase. Rejection of Certificate Quashed as Petitioner Complied with All Conditions for Non-Agricultural Use.

The petitioner, Advance Greenfield Pvt Ltd, through its director Surendrakumar Netaram Sharma, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitu...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Upholds Agreement to Sell Despite Non-Payment of Balance Consideration. Court Holds That Time Was Not of Essence in Absence of Express Stipulation and That Possession Delivered Under Agreement Constitutes Part Performance.

The dispute arose out of an agreement to sell dated 1st June 1978 executed by the original defendant No.2 (since deceased, represented by appellants) ...