Search Results for "ownership basis"

3383 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 3383 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Application for Recall/Review of Order Allowing Secured Creditor to Release Leasehold Rights. Applicant, an ex-director and guarantor, lacked locus standi as he was not a party to the original application and no fraud or mistake was established.

The judgment concerns an application filed by Mr Shashikant Pasari, an ex-director and guarantor of Rajan (Textile) Mills Pvt Ltd (in liquidation), se...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Rejection of Plaint in Property Dispute — Agreement of Transfer and Re-conveyance Clause Requires Trial. Order VII Rule 11 CPC plaint rejection set aside as suit raises triable issues regarding clause 10 of 1957 agreement and plaintiff's transferee rights.

The appellant, Satish Talakchand Shah, filed a civil suit (Civil Suit No. 1708 of 2010) in the City Civil Court, Mumbai, seeking declaration of owners...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Rejection of Plaint in Property Dispute — Suit Barred by Limitation Under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. Clause 10 of Agreement for Sale Dated 31-03-1957 Was a Right of Re-Conveyance, Not a Contract for Sale, and Cause of Action Arose in 1988.

The appellant, Kishorbhai Premchand Shah, filed a civil suit in the City Civil Court, Mumbai, seeking a declaration of ownership and permanent injunct...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Declaration of Ownership and Injunction — Petitioner Failed to Prove Title Over Disputed Property.

The petitioner, Dr. Arjun Sitaram Nitinwar, filed a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction against the respondents in the Court of...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging Cooperative Society's Bye-Law Amendment for Non-Compliance with Section 22 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Amendment to Bye-Law 26(c) set aside as notice of meeting did not contain proposed amendment.

The petitioner, Sadguru University CHS Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the amendment to Bye-Law 26(c) of the respondent society, Sadguru Premi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Dispute — Upholds Plaintiffs' Title and Possession. The court affirmed that the suit property was self-acquired by the plaintiffs' grandmother and not ancestral, and the defendant failed to prove adverse possession.

The case involves a property dispute over Gat No. 5/6, area 1.21 HR, situated at village Khamkhed, and a residential house in Jalgaon (Jamod). The pla...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay at Goa Allows Appeal Against Remand Order in Property Suit — Trial Court's Dismissal of Suit Upheld as Proper. The appellate court erred in remanding the suit for fresh decision without setting aside the trial court's findings on limitation and adverse possession.

The appellant, original defendant No. 1, filed an appeal against the order of remand dated 16.7.2013 passed by the District Judge-I, North Goa, at Pan...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Application to Set Aside Arrest of Vessel in Admiralty Suit for Bunker Supply Debt. Bunker Suppliers Have Maritime Lien Under Indian Law and Admiralty Court Has Jurisdiction to Arrest Vessel for Necessaries Supplied.

The plaintiff, Rushab Ship International LLC, filed an admiralty suit against the vessel M.V. African Eagle and others for recovery of USD 1,00,000 be...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction of Multinational Company in Rent Control Case. Section 3(1)(b) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 exempts premises let to multinational companies from protection of the Act, and concurrent findings of fact are not interfered with under Section 115 CPC.

The applicant, Eloff Hansson (India) Pvt. Ltd., was a tenant in office premises in Mumbai. The respondents, landlords, terminated the tenancy in 1993 ...