Search Results for "Section 351 notice"

247 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 247 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court declined to quash FIR in Land Fraud Case Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 though Civil Nature of Dispute and Complaint by Power of Attorney Holder is sustained

The petitioner, accused No. 8 in a land fraud case, sought quashing of FIR registered under various sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) fo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Refusal of Injunction in Municipal Demolition Case — Structure Claimed to Be Pre-1962 Protected Property. Court Holds That Prima Facie Case for Interim Relief Exists Where Structure Allegedly Existed Prior to Cut-Off Date Under Section 351 of MMC Act, 1888.

The appellant, M/s Masjid Wa Madrasa Fatimatu Zohra (Ra) Trust, filed an appeal against an order of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, dated 21 September 2...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Tenant's Appeal Against Municipal Corporation's Demolition Notice for Unauthorized Shop Structure. Tenant Failed to Prove Authorization Under Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and Withdrawal of Earlier Notice Did Not Bar Fresh Action.

The appellant, Maneklal N. Shah alias Kothari, was the original plaintiff in a suit filed against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (respond...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Rejection of Injunction in MMRDA Demolition Dispute. Appellant Failed to Establish Prima Facie Case for Interim Relief Against Demolition Orders Under MMRDA Act.

The appellant, Prakash Harishchandra Muranjan, filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, challenging twenty-seven orders/letters dated 13....

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Councillor's Disqualification Under Section 16(1D) of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 — No Disqualification Found as Respondent No.3 Was Not a Defaulter.

The petitioner, Edwin Francis Britto, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 8th January 2004 passed by the Additional Municipal Commissione...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitioner's Challenge to Rejection of Regularisation Applications for Stalls. Allotment of Pitches by Ward Officer Without Authority Does Not Create Legal Right.

The petitioner, Pravin s/o Govind Kalbhor, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 11th Februa...