Search Results for "physical possession protection"

708 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 708 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Bank's Writ Petition, Directs Execution of Section 14 SARFAESI Order Despite Pending Civil Suit. Executive Magistrate Cannot Refuse Possession on Ground of Civil Suit; Role Under Section 14 is Ministerial.

The Petitioner, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a banking company, had sanctioned a housing loan to Dipak Digambar Naik and Aruna Naik (co-borrowers) in ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Considers GST Liability on Royalty Payments to Court Receiver in Commercial Property Dispute. The Court Examines Whether Payments to a Court Receiver Under Order XL CPC Constitute Taxable Supply Under the CGST Act, 2017 and Whether GST Should be Discharged via Reverse Charge Mechanism.

The Bombay High Court, in a Court Receiver's Report arising from a commercial suit for recovery of possession of three shops used as a restaurant, exa...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay examines Official Liquidator’s report for declaration of sub-lease executed by lessee as void. The matter involves sub-lease of company property during pendency of winding up, with allegations of fabricated documents.

The matter concerns an Official Liquidator’s report filed in the winding up of Modi Stone Limited, seeking a declaration that a sub-lease dated 20 M...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Disturbed Under Section 100 CPC. Court holds that no substantial question of law arises when findings are based on appreciation of evidence and concurrent.

The case involves a second appeal filed by the defendants (appellants) against the judgment and decree dated 12.4.2005 passed by the First Additional ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Eviction Decree in Favour of Court Receiver — Tenancy Rights Not Extinguished by Consent Terms. The Court held that the Court Receiver could not evict the defendants as trespassers without due process, as the consent terms did not terminate their tenancy rights.

The appeal arises from a judgment and decree dated 22nd February 2010 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in S.C.Suit No.1154 of 2000, decreeing the...