Search Results for "Rent Control Tribunal"

337 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 337 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Allows Revision Against Wakf Tribunal Eviction Decree — Failure to Consider Rent Control Act Bar. The Court held that the Wakf Tribunal must first determine applicability of Rent Control Act before proceeding with eviction suit under Section 89(3) of Wakf Act, 1995.

The case involves two civil revision applications filed under Section 89(3) of the Wakf Act, 1995 read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Tenant's Appeal in SARFAESI Act Case — Oral Tenancy After Mortgage Not Protected. Tenant's claim of tenancy based on oral agreement after mortgage creation cannot defeat bank's right to take possession under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act.

The present appeal arises from an order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, dated 31.12.2014, rejecting the application of the ap...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Fixes Interim Compensation for Tenant Pending Eviction Revision — Mesne Profits Determined Based on Valuer Reports and Rental Market. Tenant Ordered to Pay Rs.25,000 Per Month as Interim Compensation Under Section 12 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

The case involves a civil revision application filed by the tenant, Previn Govind Sharma, against an eviction decree passed by the Appellate Bench of ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Holds Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Appoint Court Receiver Under Section 17 of Arbitration Act. Court Receiver is an Officer of the High Court Subject Only to Chief Justice's Supervision.

The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay filed a Report seeking directions on whether the Registry should accept matters where an Arbitral Tribunal appo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in TDS Dispute — Payment to Non-Resident for Software Not Royalty Under Section 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Payment for shrink-wrapped software held to be for copyright article, not transfer of copyright rights, thus not taxable as royalty.

The case involves two appeals filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)) against the common order o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in TDS Dispute — Payment to Non-Resident for Software Not Royalty. Payment for purchase of shrink-wrapped software from non-resident held not royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961, as no copyright transferred.

The case involves two appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order of the Income Tax Appella...

© 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 Dismisses Landlord's Writ Petition Challenging Small Causes Court's Jurisdiction in Rent Control Exemption Case. Section 41 of Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 Confers Jurisdiction Over Landlord-Tenant Suits Irrespective of Applicability of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

The Petitioner, Depe Global Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd., is the landlord, and the Respondent, MPIL Corporation Ltd., is the tenant in respect of suit ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

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.

The petitioners (original defendants) were a partnership firm occupying premises owned by the respondent (original plaintiff) partnership firm. Initia...