Search Results for "recovery impermissible"

765 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 765 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeals in RERA Execution Case, Holding Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC Applicable. The court set aside the Appellate Tribunal's order disallowing amendment to execution applications seeking construction by decree holders at promoter's cost.

The case involves five second appeals filed by allottees (Rajan Chandiramani, Jagruti Parikh and Anr., Priyanka Waghela, Srichand Makhija, and Jayesh ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court: Partition Suit Involving Properties Outside Jurisdiction Requires Clause XII Leave; Plaint Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for Partial Partition Bar | Renu Balwant Maru v. Bupendra Damjibhai Tank & Ors.

The Bombay High Court held that a partition suit involving immovable properties situated partly outside its territorial jurisdiction is a “Suit ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Part and Refers Question of Law to Larger Bench in MSMED Act Dispute. Registration Under Section 8 of MSMED Act, 2006 Not a Precondition for Reference Under Section 18, but Issue Requires Authoritative Determination by Three-Judge Bench.

The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by NBCC (India) Ltd. against the State of West Bengal and others, concerning a dispute with M/s Saket Infra...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Concurrent Findings in Tenancy Declaration Suit. Applicant fails to prove membership of deceased tenant's family or residence in suit premises under Section 7(15)(d) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

The case involves a Civil Revision Application filed by Pradeep Kumar Lalit Kumar Pandya challenging the concurrent judgments of the Small Causes Cour...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Deduction of Rs.90/MT by Karnataka Power Corporation Limited from Coal Bills — Contractual Dispute Not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners, M/s. EMTA Coal Limited and M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Limited, filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitutio...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petitions in Coal Supply Contract Dispute — Contractual Dispute Not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction. Deduction of Rs.90/MT by Karnataka Power Corporation Limited from Coal Bills Challenged, but Court Holds Alternative Remedy of Arbitration Available.

The petitioners, M/s. EMTA Coal Limited and M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Limited, filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitutio...