NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 443 OF 2012
27 Jun 2013The matter arises out of Suit No. 1512 of 2009 before the Bombay High Court, filed by Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Ltd. against Jignesh Shah, Aruna Sh...
Search Results for "Developers"
1712 result(s) found
Found 1712 result(s)
High Court
Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction Restraining Co-operative Housing Society from Appointing Another Developer in Redevelopment Dispute. Letters exchanged between developer and society held to constitute a binding contract for redevelopment, and termination letter declared illegal.
1 Feb 2024The plaintiff, Pittie Antariksh Grl Pvt Ltd, a real estate company, filed a suit seeking declaration that letters dated 30/8/2021 and 23/10/2021 const...
- 64
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Developer's Petition Challenging Deemed Conveyance Order in Favor of Cooperative Housing Society. Developer's Obligation to Transfer Land to Society Under Section 11 of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 is Absolute and Not Subject to Limitation.
5 Apr 2023The petitioners, K.V. Satyamurthy and S.M. Builders, were the owners and developers of a piece of land in Juhu, Mumbai. They constructed and sold 36 b...
- 90
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Developer's Appeals in Consumer Dispute Over Delayed Housing Project. Developer's liability to refund allottees upheld due to breach of construction timeline under Tripartite Agreement, with consumer fora jurisdiction affirmed despite arbitration clause.
13 Apr 2023The dispute arose from a housing project named 'Pride Asia' in Chandigarh, where the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) was appointed as the nodal agency ...
- 209
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Developer's Interim Application in Development Agreement Dispute — Prima Facie Case Not Made Out as Agreement Was Terminated for Non-Performance. Specific Performance Claim Requires Trial; No Irreparable Loss Shown.
19 Nov 2012The Plaintiffs, Shantilal J. Shah and others, filed a suit seeking a declaration that a Development Agreement dated 25th September 2007 and an Irrevoc...
- 60
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Developer's Challenge to AGRC Order in Slum Rehabilitation Dispute. AGRC's order directing SRA to decide on eligibility of slum dwellers for rehabilitation based on cut-off date upheld as valid exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.
2 Apr 2024The judgment pertains to two writ petitions filed by M/s. Sateri Builders and Developers LLP (the Developer) and Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) Co-operative Ho...
- 118
High Court
Karnataka High Court Reserves Decision on Quashing of Multiple FIRs in Real Estate Dispute; Developers Contend Breach of Contract, Not Cheating. Court Examines Whether Civil Dispute Can Attract Criminal Liability Under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
21 Oct 2024The Karnataka High Court heard a batch of criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of mult...
- 12
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Allows Appeals of Flat Buyers Against Developer for Delayed Possession, Holds Unilateral Compensation Clause Unfair. Developer's stipulation of Rs 5 per sq ft per month as liquidated damages for delay held inadequate and unconscionable; flat buyers entitled to compensation at 6% per annum on amounts paid.
24 Aug 2020The case involves appeals by 171 flat buyers against the dismissal of their consumer complaint by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ...
- 248
High Court
- 23
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Arbitration Appeals and Interim Applications in Developer Dispute — Upholds Appointment of Arbitrator Despite Alleged Non-Signatory Status. Court holds that non-signatory to an arbitration agreement can be referred to arbitration under the 'group of companies' doctrine and Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
30 Nov -0001The judgment arises from two arbitration appeals and two interim applications filed before the Bombay High Court. The appellants, Arvind Ratanchand Ja...
- 41
