Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Hawabai Wd/O Late Suleman Haji vs Abdul Sattar Suleman Haji Ahmed Oomer ... on 6 October, 1994

Bankay Bihari G. Agrawal vs M/S Bhagwanji Meghihi & Ors. on 27 September, 2000

42. The judgment of this Court in Hawabai v. Abdul Sattar Oomer, supports the argument that a person who chooses to take advantage of a summary remedy must also be bound by the disadvantages thereunder. A person who chooses to file a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act and chooses the summary procedure, therefore, must necessarily have to comply with the limitation for filing the suit as prescribed thereunder and not fall back on the limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 58 - R P Desai - Full Document

Jayashree Jaisingh Babar vs Shirish Ramdas Sarode on 13 February, 2026

Mr. Gupte would further submit that there was no question of Respondent-Plaintiff being in settled possession of the suit flat as he is merely a developer and has constructed the flat in the building. The case therefore does not involve taking over of possession of the property of someone who is in settled possession. The dispute on the other hand is confined to validity of possession secured by the Applicant from the developer which issue is beyond the scope of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. He relies on judgment of this Court in Hawabai Wd/o Suleman Haji Ahmed Oomar vs. Abdul Sattar Suleman Haji Ahmed Oomar and Anr.1 Mr. Gupte would pray for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhakaram Khojaram Bishnoi vs Kiran Shivaji Sunka on 12 September, 2022

3. On the other hand, Mr. Karande, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of Raghunath R. Shingate v. Jayant Gajanan Pathak and Ors. 2011(6) Mh.L.J. 799 and Hawabi wd/o Late Suleman Haji v. Abdul Sattar Suleman Haji Ahmed Oomer and Anr. In 1995(2) Bom. C.R.551 wherein, it has been held that a decree or order, passed in the Suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act are not appellable, may it interlocutory or otherwise, in terms of Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S K Shinde - Full Document
1