Search Results for "suit register"

1705 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1705 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Land Incorporation Dispute — Upholds High Court Single Judge's Order Directing MCD to Consider Plot Incorporation in Layout Plan. Ownership Rights of Private Purchasers Prevail Over Municipal Register Entries in Absence of Due Process.

The dispute concerns a parcel of land admeasuring 1600 sq. yards in Green Park Extension, New Delhi, originally part of a larger tract owned by Urban ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Remand Order in Property Suit — Trial Court's Judgment Set Aside for Failure to Frame Issues and Consider Evidence. Lower Appellate Court's Remand Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC Upheld as Proper Exercise of Power to Prevent Failure of Justice.

The case involves a property dispute over land Survey No. 50 admeasuring 26 acres 4 gunthas situated at village Asadullabag. The original plaintiff, K...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Landlord's Eviction Petition in Rent Control Case — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Disturbed. Landlord failed to prove bonafide requirement and unlawful subletting under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

The petitioners, owners of a property in Thane, filed a suit for eviction of the respondents from a gala (shop) on grounds of default in rent, unlawfu...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeal in Partition Suit for Lack of Proof of Joint Family Property. Court holds that the burden to prove that property is joint family property lies on the party asserting it, and mere joint family status does not create a presumption.

The case involves a partition suit filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) claiming that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

FIRST APPEAL NO.316 OF 2015

The litigation arose from a civil suit (RCS No.3/2004) filed by Kopargaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited against 7 Star Distilleries and Royal Drink...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Plaintiff's Interim Injunction in Trademark and Copyright Infringement Suit Due to Suppression of Material Facts. Plaintiff's Conduct of Suppressing Prior User and Earlier Litigation Disentitles It to Equitable Relief Under Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Copyright Act, 1957.

The suit was filed by ITC Limited against NTC Industries Ltd. for trademark and copyright infringement and passing off in relation to cigarettes and t...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree in Summary Suit Due to Non-Service of Summons for Judgment on Defendants' Advocate. Service on Defendants directly without prior attempt on advocate held insufficient under Order XXXVII CPC.

The petitioners, original defendants in Summary Suit No.4914 of 2012, challenged the order dated 08.07.2013 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, di...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Hears Cross Appeals Against Temporary Injunction Order in Suit by Co-operative Housing Society. Developer and Land Owner Challenge Order Restraining Construction and Use of FSI in Suit Alleging Breach of Development Obligations.

The dispute arose from a development project known as Dosti Flamingos in Sewri, Mumbai. M/s. Dosti Corporation, a partnership firm, acted as developer...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging No Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch Under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. Court Holds That Removal of Sarpanch by No Confidence Motion Does Not Require Prior Notice or Opportunity of Hearing Under Section 55(2A) of the Act.

The petitioner, Bharat Vitthal Shete, was the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Pimpalgaon Khand. A no confidence motion was moved against him by respondent N...