Search Results for "going behind decree"

307 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 307 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction of Tenant for Unauthorised Permanent Construction Under Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Tenant's temporary structure argument rejected as Appellate Court found MS angles, asbestos sheets, and polythene roof constituted permanent construction causing danger to building.

The case involves a dispute between the respondent-landlord, Kadambagiri Estates Pvt. Ltd., and the petitioner-tenant, Mrs. Binaifer Batiwala, over ev...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Tenant's Writ Petition Challenging Eviction Decree for Rent Default. Tenant Failed to Pay Rent for Over a Decade, No Dispute as to Standard Rent or Permitted Increases, Case Falls Under Section 12(3)(a) of Bombay Rent Act.

The dispute pertains to a suit for eviction filed by the landlady, Mrs. Kusum Pandurang Keni, against the tenant, Sudhir Kumar Sengupta (since decease...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition in Specific Performance Suit — Ex-parte Decree Restored Due to Valid Service of Summons. Service by affixture at last known address under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC held valid despite bailiff's report of 'left premises'.

The petitioners, original plaintiffs, filed a suit for specific performance against the respondent/defendant based on an agreement dated 4th April 199...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Execution of Cooperative Court Decree for Allotment of Plot. Executing Court Cannot Go Behind Decree; Objection Regarding Non-Existence of Plot Not Entertained as Decree Had Attained Finality.

The case arises from a dispute between a member (respondent) and a cooperative housing society (applicant) regarding allotment of plots. In 1991, the ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Amendment of Probate Schedule by Prothonotary. Prothonotary has power to allow amendment of schedule of assets in probate proceedings under Section 317 of Indian Succession Act, 1925.

The petitioners, Mukesh Ramanlal Gokal and Bharat Ramanlal Gokal, filed a petition under the Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction of the Bombay Hig...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Third Party Impleadment in Property Appeal — Applicants Claiming Adverse Possession Must Be Heard. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC invoked to join parties with independent title claims to ensure complete adjudication.

The present application was filed by two applicants, Khalil Haji Bholumiya Salar and Bilkis Mehboobsaheb Mujawar, seeking impleadment in First Appeal ...