KAHC010220972024_1
20 Jul 2026These commercial appeals under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2...
Search Results for "possession and enjoyment"
1313 result(s) found
Found 1313 result(s)
High Court
High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Dispute, Upholding Concurrent Findings of Fact. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC as the findings of the courts below were based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse.
9 Jul 2026The case involves a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff...
- 34
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal for Declaration of Ownership by Adverse Possession Against Government Land. Claim of Long Possession Fails as Plaintiffs Failed to Prove Possession for Over 12 Years and Property Was Government Land.
21 Oct 2010The appellants, plaintiffs in the original suit, filed First Appeal No. 282 of 2007 before the Bombay High Court at Goa against the judgment dated 25-...
- 121
High Court
Bombay High Court Examines Validity of Land Acquisition under Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971 for Non-Compliance with Prior Notice Requirement under Section 13. Petitioners Allege Violation of Natural Justice as Ex-Parte Award Passed Without Proper Service of Notices and Without Following Section 17(5).
14 Oct 2025The High Court of Bombay heard two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the acquisition of land and a struc...
- 13
High Court
Bombay High Court Admits Writ Petition and Grants Interim Stay on Recovery of Unearned Income. Demand of Rs.26.06 Crores Against Tata Communications Alleged to be Based on Erroneous Finding of Land Transfer Due to Change in Shareholding.
1 Dec 2025The writ petition was filed by Tata Communications Limited (formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) challenging the order of the Revenue Minister dated...
High Court
High Court Directs BBMP to Consider Apartment Owners' Complaint Against Building Licence Granted Over Common Amenity Area. Undivided Share in Entire Property Conveyed by Sale Deeds Includes Land Reserved for RWHU and STP; Builder Cannot Unilaterally Alter Approved Plan.
25 Apr 2025The petitioner, Keerthi Harmony Apartment Owners Association, challenged a building licence granted by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) i...
- 22
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Eviction Decree in Partnership Property Dispute. Concurrent findings of fact that defendants were licensees, not tenants, upheld under Article 227.
12 Aug 2011The petitioners (original defendants) were a partnership firm occupying premises owned by the respondent (original plaintiff) partnership firm. Initia...
- 65
High Court
High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Second Appeal by Defendants in Partition Suit; Oral Partition of Immovable Property Not Permissible Under Section 2184 of Portuguese Civil Code. The court held that Section 2184 of the Portuguese Civil Code, requiring partition of immovables by written document, remains in force in Goa and is not repealed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1954.
11 Aug 2017The dispute arose from a suit for partition filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) against the appellants (original defendants). The 1st plain...
- 51
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With Under Section 100 CPC. Suit for Declaration and Injunction Dismissed as Plaintiffs Failed to Prove Title and Possession Over Suit Property.
28 Nov 2014The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the original suit, filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit proper...
- 57
High Court
Madras High Court Allows Second Appeal in Property Dispute, Sets Aside First Appellate Court's Decree for Failure to Frame Substantial Question of Law Under Section 100 CPC. The Court held that the First Appellate Court's reversal of the Trial Court's decree was perverse and not based on evidence regarding adverse possession.
20 Jan 2025The case involves a property dispute between the plaintiffs (Manickammal and others) and the defendant (Arunachalam). The suit property originally bel...
- 44
