Search Results for "owner impleadment"

341 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 341 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Impleadment of Subsequent Purchaser in Suit Challenging Municipal Notice Under Section 351 of MMC Act, 1988. Petitioner's Sufficient Interest Recognized as Property Owner Entitled to Be Heard Before Adverse Orders.

The Petitioner, Lodha Properties Development Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 26th February 2014 passed by the City ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Impleadment in Execution Proceedings. Executing Court's Order Allowing Impleadment of Legal Heirs Upheld Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC Despite Prior Deletion Based on Release Deed.

The petitioner, Bhausaheb Dattatray Patil, was the original owner of the suit property. He filed Regular Civil Suit No.95 of 1985 for possession again...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Petition Challenging Impleadment of Purchaser Pendente Lite. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC Impleadment Proper as Purchaser is Necessary Party to Avoid Multiplicity of Proceedings.

The petitioner, Fabrica Da Igreja De Vasco, purchased the suit property from the original defendant No.1 during the pendency of a suit filed by respon...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Dismisses Revision Against Impleadment of Proprietor's Wife in Money Suit. Order I Rule 10(2) CPC Allows Impleadment of Necessary Party for Effective Adjudication of Dispute Arising from Dishonoured Cheque Issued for Business Loan.

The revision petitioner, K. Balasathiya Narayanan, filed a civil suit (O.S. No.176 of 2019) before the Principal District Court, Erode, against the fi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Hears Writ Petition on Impleadment of Additional Defendants in Specific Performance Suit — Considers Proper Party Test Under Order I Rule 10 CPC

The petitioner, as plaintiff, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10.06.2016 executed by late Mariyappa in respect of ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Rejection of Impleadment Application in Suit Challenging MHADA Notice. The court held that the petitioner, a company, was not a necessary or proper party to the suit between tenants and MHADA and had no right to be impleaded.

The petitioner, Orbit Corporate Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 9-2-2012 pass...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge to Impleadment of Subsequent Purchasers in Partition Appeal. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allows joinder of parties whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication, even if purchase is during pendency of litigation under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The petitioners, original plaintiffs in a partition suit, filed Regular Civil Suit No.268/2008 seeking half share in suit lands bearing Gat No.151 and...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Son's Challenge Against Impleadment of Parents in Property Suit — Order Directing Addition of Parents as Parties Set Aside. Court holds that parents have no independent right to be impleaded in son's suit for possession against third parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

The petitioner, Parag Prakash Mutha, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10 January 2022 passed by the 7th Additional Judge, Small Causes...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Impleadment of Landlord in Suit Against Demolition Notice Under Section 351 of BMC Act, 1888. Landlord's Direct Interest in Property Makes Them a Necessary Party Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

The petitioners, claiming to be owners of a gala in Dhiraj Pen Compound, Andheri, filed a suit challenging a demolition notice dated 17 September 2008...