Search Results for "Compulsory Acquisition"

540 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 540 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Registered Suo Motu by Police Under MRTP Act — Police Officer Lacks Authority to Register FIR Under Section 154 CrPC for Offences Under Sections 43 and 52 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966

The petitioner, Mahesh Shivram Puthran, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an FIR registered by the poli...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

WRIT PETITION NO.5186 OF 2001

...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge to MOFA Amendments and Upholds Conveyance Order — Amendments to Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 by Act No.4 of 2008 are intra vires and Competent Authority's order directing conveyance is valid as promoter failed to execute conveyance within statutory period.

The petitioner, M/s. Shree Siddharth Construction, a partnership firm, challenged the constitutional validity of amendments made to the Maharashtra Ow...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Specific Performance Dispute. Court upholds arbitrator's discretion to deny specific performance and award damages instead, finding no grounds for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The petitioner, Rolta India Ltd., challenged an arbitral award dated 8th December, 2010 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Order Holding Suit Maintainable Despite MRTP Act Bar. Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted Under Section 149 of MRTP Act Where Dispute Involves Title and Possession, Not Just Planning Violations.

The case involves a civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging an order dated 22/3/2013 passed by ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Amendment to DCR 33(7) Appendix III for Lack of Locus Standi and Bonafides. Petitioner failed to establish any public interest or personal injury, leading to dismissal with costs.

The petitioner, Mr. Imran Suleman Qureshi, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Bombay High Court challenging an amendment dated 21/05/2011...