Search Results for "Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act"

555 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 555 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions by Tenants Challenging Redevelopment of Dilapidated Building. Tenants' objections under DCPR 2034 rejected as redevelopment was approved by majority and TAC.

The Bombay High Court dismissed seven writ petitions filed by tenants of a building named 'Haji Manzil' located in Bandra, Mumbai. The building, const...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Refusal to Reject Plaint in Suit for Conveyance and Amenities. Plaint Disclosed Cause of Action and Claim for Conveyance is Continuing Cause of Action Not Barred by Limitation.

The case involves a civil revision application filed by the applicants (defendants in the suit) challenging the order of the learned Senior Civil Judg...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against RERA Orders on Pre-2017 Agreements, Upholding Retrospective Application of MahaRERA. Court holds that Section 3(1) of RERA applies to ongoing projects even if agreements were executed before the Act came into force.

The judgment concerns three connected second appeals filed before the Bombay High Court under the Civil Appellate Jurisdiction. The appeals were filed...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Redevelopment Scheme Under DCR 33(7) — Consents Verified and Video Recorded. Tenants Who Refused to Vacate Were Issued Notices Under Section 95A of MHADA Act, 1976; Court Found No Merit in Grievance.

The ten petitioners, occupants of a cessed structure on CS 1101, Khandia Street, Byculla, Mumbai, challenged a redevelopment scheme sanctioned by MHAD...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Councillor's Disqualification Under Section 16(1D) of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 — No Disqualification Found as Respondent No.3 Was Not a Defaulter.

The petitioner, Edwin Francis Britto, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 8th January 2004 passed by the Additional Municipal Commissione...