Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Sahara India Commercial Corporation ... vs B. Jeejeebhoy Vakharia And Associates ... on 4 June, 2007

Honble Chairman Vice Chairman And All ... vs Rameshchandra Biharilal Gangwal on 13 September, 2017

25. In so far as order 14 Rule 2 is concerned, no doubt, it would be the discretion of the Trial Court to decide whether an issue could be advantageously decided peremptorily so that the time of the litigating sides as well as the Court could be saved in the event the suit is held untenable. In the impugned order, I do not find that the Trial Court has adverted to the pleadings of the plaintiff and the factors that have led the plaintiff to file a suit and demand damages. I also do not find whether the Trial Court has considered that Section 164 is a mandatory provision and considering the law laid down in Sahara India case (supra), the Trial Court is expected to seek compliance of the said provision.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

Anal Apartments Co.Op. Housing Society ... vs M/S. Kushagra Developers, Partnership ... on 26 September, 2018

In the above case, the suit for specific performance was filed and the plaintiff prayed for injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with, disposing of, alienating or encumbering the suit property pending the suit. In the said case, the Court noticed that the MoU was essentially an agreement to transfer immovable property, predominant object of which was to transfer the immovable property and not to give merely development rights. Such judgment has no application considering the nature of the agreement entered between the parties in the present case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - C L Soni - Full Document

Pusad Urban Cooperative Bank, Yavatmal ... vs Piyush S/O Vikram Gholve And Others on 26 July, 2019

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner however by relying upon the decision in Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Vs. B.Jeejeebhoy Vakharia and Associates, 2008(5) Mh.L.J. 803 and Tirupati Ginning and Pressing Factory Vs. M/s. Balaji Ginning and Pressing Industry Akola and others, submits that in absence of any prior notice under Section 164 of the said Act, the suit itself was not maintainable.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document
1