High Court of Bombay Adjudicates Writ Petition Filed by Cooperative Housing Societies. Petitioners Challenge Orders of Cooperative Authorities Allegedly Favoring Developer.
9 May 2025...
Search Results for "ownership evidence"
3166 result(s) found
Found 3166 result(s)
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Hears Civil Appeal on the Scope of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 Overriding the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in a Pre-Existing Asset Sale Agreement. The AAIFR Ruled That Section 22A Does Not Apply to Pre-Existing Agreements, and the Supreme Court Was to Determine the Correctness.
1 Aug 2026The Supreme Court heard a civil appeal arising from orders passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) conce...
- 61
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeals Against Execution of Decree for Possession, Holding That Objectors Claiming Adverse Possession Must First Establish Their Own Independent Title. Order XXI Rule 97 CPC Objections Cannot Be Used to Re-litigate Title Already Decided Against the Judgment Debtor.
13 Oct 2010The present appeals arise from execution proceedings initiated by the decree holder (respondent No. 1) to enforce a decree for possession of land adme...
- 64
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Eviction Decree Under Section 13A(1) of Bombay Rent Act for Bona Fide Requirement of Landlord's Son. Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interferable Under Section 115 CPC as No Jurisdictional Error Found.
11 Aug 2005The case involves a Civil Revision Application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging the eviction decree pass...
- 95
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Title Dispute — Upholds Concurrent Findings of Ownership and Rejects Adverse Possession Claim. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove continuous hostile possession for 12 years and that the defendants' long-standing possession was permissive, not adverse.
24 Sep 2018The case involves a second appeal before the Bombay High Court arising from a property dispute. The appellants (defendants) are the legal representati...
- 12
High Court
Deemed Conveyance under MOFA – Rejection of Application by Competent Authority Set Aside. High Court of Bombay – Writ Petition under Article 226 – Challenge to Rejection of Deemed Conveyance – Developer’s Delay in Redevelopment Not a Justification – Statutory Rights under Section 11 of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 Upheld – Competent Authority Directed to Issue Conveyance Certificate
18 Feb 2025Constitution of India, Article 226 – Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management, and Transfer) Act, ...
- 1054
High Court
Bombay High Court Reserves Judgment in PIL Challenging Redevelopment Permissions in Heritage Precinct. Residents Allege Violation of Development Control Regulations and Arbitrary Administrative Actions by Municipal Authorities and Developer.
19 Oct 2018The matter before the Bombay High Court was a Public Interest Litigation filed by four residents of Carmichael Road, Mumbai, including Normandie Coope...
- 68
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Tenant’s Writ Petition Challenging Eviction Decree Under Bombay Rent Act. Concurrent Findings of Default in Rent Payment Under Section 12 Upheld as No Dispute Raised Within One Month of Demand Notice.
30 Jun 2005The dispute arose from an eviction suit filed by the respondent-landlord, who became owner of House No. 447B, Mahatma Phule Peth, Pune, by virtue of a...
- 21
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Allows Plaintiff's Appeal in Land Dispute, Reversing High Court's Dismissal on Limitation Grounds. Adverse Possession Claim Fails as Limitation Period Commenced from 1966 Title Acquisition, Not 1944, Under Limitation Act, 1963, and High Court Exceeded Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC by Re-appreciating Findings of Fact.
3 Jan 2024The dispute involved a civil appeal before the Supreme Court concerning a land title and possession conflict over 3500 sq. ft. of Plot No.1019 in Hard...
- 452
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Upholds FIRs for Illegal Mining Despite Compounding Under MMDR Act — IPC Offences Are Distinct and Not Barred by Section 22 of MMDR Act. The court held that compounding under the MMDR Act does not bar prosecution under the IPC for theft and criminal misappropriation, as the offences are separate and distinct.
1 Sep 2020The Supreme Court dismissed appeals by private appellants and the State of Madhya Pradesh against the High Court's refusal to quash FIRs for illegal m...
- 462
