WRIT PETITION NO.16958 OF 2024
21 Jun 2025...
Search Results for "builders/developers"
667 result(s) found
Found 667 result(s)
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Petition Against Railway Eviction Notice for Non-Compliance with Statutory Requirements. Notice under Section 4 of the Railway Land (Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1966 must specify the period of occupation and be served on the person in occupation.
2 Jan 2024The petitioners, Bhupendra Villa Premises Co-operative Society Limited, M/s. Ramesh Builders, and Rajen Harshadlal Sanghvi, filed a writ petition unde...
- 60
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Challenging Rejection of Objections to Nomination in Co-operative Society Election — Petitioner's Objections to Respondent's Nomination Were Not Properly Considered by Election Officer
17 Jan 2023The petitioner, Vaibhav Manohar Bhokare, filed two writ petitions challenging an order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the District Co-operative Election O...
- 95
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Seeking Implementation of Government Resolutions for Regularisation of Surplus Vacant Land Under ULC Act — Petitioner Entitled to Benefit of Policy Despite Earlier Exemption Order. Court Directs Respondents to Raise Demand for Premium and Upon Payment, Relieve Petitioner of Exemption Conditions.
30 Mar 2023The petitioners, Salim Alimahomed Porbanderwalla (owner of land CTS Nos. 124 and 125, Village Marol, Andheri, measuring about 17492.70 sq mtrs) and Sh...
- 77
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes ULC Act Demand for Excess Land Due to Repeal and Non-Completion of Proceedings. Demand for Rs 6,09,66,477 raised under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 set aside as proceedings were not finalized before the Act's repeal and the land was not vested in the State.
9 Aug 2023The petitioners, nine individuals, filed a writ petition challenging a demand of Rs 6,09,66,477 raised by the District Collector and Competent Authori...
- 85
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Premium Demand on Entire Land in ULC Repeal Case — Demand Must Be Limited to Vacant Land Only. The Court held that under the repealed Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, a premium demand for the entire land including built-up area is impermissible; only vacant land as per the exemption order can be subject to premium.
9 Aug 2023The Petitioner, Modern Paints, a partnership firm, acquired land in Oshiwara, Mumbai, under a conveyance dated 12 June 1975. On 1 August 1977, it file...
- 59
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes ULC Act Demand for Entire Land Area Including Vacant Land — Demand Must Be Limited to Built-Up Area Only. The court held that under the repealed Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, a demand for payment cannot include vacant land as per the Section 20 Exemption Order Schedule.
9 Aug 2023The petitioners challenged a demand of Rs 6,09,66,477 raised by the District Collector and Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regul...
- 33
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Contempt Appeal, Quashes Charges Against Appellants in Contempt Proceedings for Alleged Willful Disobedience of School Tribunal Order. The Court held that mere non-compliance of a reinstatement order does not automatically constitute contempt unless there is willful and deliberate disobedience, and that the Single Judge's order framing charges was premature without giving opportunity to show cause.
14 Jan 2022The case arises from a contempt appeal filed by the appellants, who were the Secretary and Head Master of an educational institution, against an order...
- 32
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Trust and Highest Bidder's Challenge to Joint Charity Commissioner's Order Rejecting Sale of Trust Property Under Section 36(1)(a) of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 — Tender Process Found Lacking Wide Publicity and Transparency.
7 Jul 2022The case involves two writ petitions: one by M/s. Sai Builder and Developer (the highest bidder) and another by Vitthal Rukhmai Deosthan Trust (the Tr...
- 69
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Appointment of Arbitrator in Contract Dispute Due to Failure of Multi-Tier Dispute Resolution Mechanism. Failure to Appoint Arbitrator Within 30 Days Triggers Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2 Dec 2022The applicant, M/s. Mehra & Company, a partnership firm, filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeki...
- 38
