Search Results for "execution petition maintainability"

605 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 605 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Concurrent Orders in Suit Under Section 33 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — Petitioner Failed to Show Any Error in Findings of Courts Below.

The petitioner, M/s Columbia Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., was the original defendant No.9 in a suit filed by respondent No.1, M/s Maharashtra...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Land Acquisition for Non-Payment of Compensation Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Acquisition Lapses as Compensation Not Paid Within Five Years Despite Possession Taken.

The petitioners, original owners of land at Roadpali, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, challenged the acquisition of their land by CIDCO under the Land...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Bail to Developer in Consumer Execution Proceedings for Non-Compliance of Refund Order. Held that Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is penal in nature and bail should be granted liberally unless there is likelihood of abscondence or tampering with evidence.

The petitioner, Suhas Ratnakar Morey, a developer, was involved in a consumer dispute with the respondent, Dhanraj Tulshiram Khaparde, who had paid Rs...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Cross Appeals in Part in Arbitration Dispute Over Interim Measures Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court Clarifies That an Award Creditor Can Seek Interim Relief During Section 34 Proceedings to Secure the Award Amount.

The case involves cross appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arising from a common order dated 1 July 2019 passed by...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Execution Proceedings — Possessory Title Not Required for Restoration Under Order XXI Rules 98-100 CPC. High Court erred in ordering restoration of possession without determining whether respondent had any right to possession under Order XXI Rules 98-100 CPC.

The Supreme Court considered an appeal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had allowed the appeal of the respondent (Lt. Col. Nahar ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Execution Second Appeal as Not Maintainable Against Order Under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC. Order Allowing Execution Petition Under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC Does Not Amount to a Decree and Hence No Second Appeal Lies.

The case pertains to an Execution Second Appeal filed by B. Kashinath Choudhary against an order dated 11.03.2013 passed by the Principal Civil Judge ...