Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.48 seconds)

Ravindra Mutneja, Rajendra Mutneja, ... vs Bhavan Corporation A Partnership Firm, ... on 27 February, 2003

14. Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that even if the case of the petitioners is taken at par and construed rather generously, with reference to the recitles in the MOFA Agreement, it becomes explicitly clear that the petitioners had agreed to convey entire Plot "D" admeasuring 18,602.20 sq. mtrs. of land. At best, it would be a case of the petitioners having failed to construct a building on a portion of Plot "D" and that, according to Mr. Khandeparkar, even if taken at par, does not furnish a ground to defer the execution of conveyance. Mr. Khandeparkar 10/29 ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 08:58:19 ::: WP5230-2022.DOC further submitted that the entire endeavour on the part of the petitioners has been to obtain undue advantage of the change in Development Control Regulations and derive benefit of the enhanced development rights to the detriment of respondent No.2 and its members. Such benefits, on account of change in law, accrue to the Society and not the developer, submitted Mr. Khandeparkar. To lend support to this submission Mr. Khandeparkar placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Ravindra Mutenja and others vs. Bhavan Corporation and others3 and Vidhi Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Arenbee Media Consultants Limited4.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 25 - F I Rebello - Full Document
1   2 Next