Search Results for "Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976"

411 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 411 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Examines Validity of Deemed Membership under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Transfer of Leasehold Plot through Auction Challenged as Violative of Society Byelaws and Lease Deed Conditions.

The Writ Petition arises from a dispute concerning deemed membership in a cooperative housing society. The petitioner, The Sopan Baug Cooperative Hous...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Land Acquisition Under Urban Land Ceiling Act After Repeal — Possession Not Taken, Land Vests Back in Petitioners. Repeal Act of 1999 Applies as Possession Was Not Taken Under Section 10(5) of the 1976 Act Before Repeal.

The petitioners, Gopalrao Shiva Ikhankar and others, filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition of their land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Transfer Order of MHADA Employee — Transfer Held to Be Administrative Decision Not Subject to Strict Judicial Review Unless Mala Fide or Violative of Statutory Rules.

The petitioner, Balkrishna Dattatraya Joshi, was an employee of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) working at Dhule. He wa...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Builder's Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Agreement for Development Not Concluded Due to Missing Essential Terms. Failure to Prove Concluded Contract for Sale of Land as Agreement Lacked Certainty of Terms and Was Subject to Further Negotiations.

The appellant, Ramesh Amarnath Malhotra, a builder and developer trading as Deonar Development Corporation, filed a suit for specific performance of a...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Rejection of Temporary Injunction in Slum Rehabilitation Tenement Dispute. Court holds that Trial Court erred in not considering balance of convenience and irreparable loss while rejecting injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

The appellants, Fayzan Khan, Devendra Mishra, Firoz Ismail Khan, and Rajesh Kanojiya, filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Dindoshi seeking a decla...