citedby: 190307602

Sadashiv Tryambak Rajebahadur And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra Through Principal ... on 4 May, 2023

(f)wp.1093.17.doc Sumedh ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2023 15:02:23 ::: MRTP Act, the notice period was of 24 months and not 12 months and consequently, the judgment in the case of Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case.

Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Salim Abdul Subhan Shaikh Secretary, ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through The Dept. ... on 19 April, 2024

In Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave v Nasik Municipal Corporation,7 a co-ordinate bench of this Court held that the publication of the Draft Revised Plan issued prior to the issuance of Purchase notice cannot have an effect of continuing the reservation on account of the same being sanctioned subsequently.

Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document

Mr. Nilesh Prakashrao More vs State Of Maharashtra Thru Its Urban ... on 27 March, 2026

"In the case of Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave (Supra), a Coordinate Bench of this court has taken a view that in a case involving question of deemed lapsing of reservation, the draft revised development plan has no legal sanctity and it cannot be

Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

Gopal Narayandasji Panpalia And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ... on 30 March, 2026

4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that on account of the draft plan prepared under Section 38 of the Act of 1966 on 06.12.2018, the period of ten years, will have to be counted from the said date, considering which, the Petition is not maintainable In this context, what is required to be considered is that a similar issue is raised has already been dealt with by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave and others Vs. Nashik Municipal Corporation and others, 2023 (2) BCR 469, it is held as under :

Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A S Kilor - Full Document

Arvind Balaji Walvekar vs The State Of Gov. Of Maharashtra Through ... on 29 July, 2024

2844 Page 3 of 5 29th July 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2024 15:42:03 ::: 21-ASWP-5180-2022 (COPY).DOCX Municipal Commissioner, Pune and Ors.5 However, the decisions in Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave (supra) and Sadashiv Tryambak Rejebahadur (supra) considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prafulla C. Dave vs Municipal Corporation of Pune6 affirming the decision of the Division Bench of this Court.

Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Sunil Laxman Dond And Ors vs The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal ... on 8 April, 2025

12) With regard to the contention that, there was fresh reservation imposed in the Development Plan, in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 554 followed by this Court in the case of Santu 9/11 ::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2025 22:56:10 ::: sns 36-aswp-9318-2023-J - F.doc Sukhdeo Jaibhave and Others vs Nashik Municipal Corporation and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 5273, it was held that the statutory right accrued to the owners cannot be taken away by an attempt to impose fresh reservation in a development plan. The ratio of the above cases squarely applies to the present case.

Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A S Gadkari - Full Document

Milind Panjabrao Bhende And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ... on 14 August, 2025

In this context, what is required to be considered is that a similar issue is raised has already been dealt with by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Santu Sukhdeo 7/10 907.Judg.wp.6274.2024.odt Jaibhave and others Vs. Nashik Municipal Corporation and others, 2023 (2) BCR 469, it is held as under :

Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - M S Jawalkar - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results