Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.37 seconds)
Upadhyay Dairy Farm vs District Deputy Registrar Co Op ... on 13 October, 2025 cites

Acme Enterprises And Anr vs Deputy Registrar Co Operative ... on 5 June, 2023

12. The position of law that emerges from the aforesaid judgements clearly indicates that even if the grievance of the aggrieved party like the petitioners herein is that the competent authority, by issuing the deemed conveyance, has conveyed property beyond the agreement, the only remedy is to approach the civil court. In this context, reference to the schedules to the agreements assumes significance. The schedules are not disputed and there is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the respondent societies that it was due to failure on the part of the petitioners in executing conveyances that the societies were constrained to approach the competent authority for granting unilateral deemed conveyance. As recorded in the aforementioned judgement in the case of 7/8 ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2025 21:18:48 ::: 22to24WPL30121_24.doc ACME Enterprises and another Vs. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others (supra), the enquiry in such situations is necessarily of limited nature and disputes of the kind sought to be raised on behalf of the parties like the petitioners ought to be ventilated before the competent civil court. As regards the distinction sought to be made on behalf of the petitioner that in these cases, the petitioners are carving upon entitlements recorded in the subject agreements, suffice it to say that such a distinction can be of no consequence, in the light of the specific observations made by the competent authority in clauses (g), (h) and (i) of paragraph 16 of the impugned order. The moment disputes of the nature recorded in the said portion of the impugned order arise, there can be no other way for the petitioners but to approach the competent civil court to ventilate their grievances.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - N J Jamadar - Full Document

Tushar Jivram Chauhan And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 24 March, 2015

A learned Single Judge of this Court after adverting to the previous pronouncements including the judgment in the case of Tushar Jivram Chauhan V. State of Maharashtra observed that in the facts of the said case the Society cannot insist for 6/8 ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2025 21:18:48 ::: 22to24WPL30121_24.doc the deemed conveyance and/or certificate of the entire land as was done in that case, based upon the society's wrong averments that there was no balance FSI available as per the prevailing DC rules and the bye-laws.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Mazda Construction Company vs Sultanabad Darshan Chs Ltd on 31 August, 2012

"9. ... We are of the clear opinion that the society approached the Competent Authority with a limited request, namely, that having formed a legal entity namely the co- operative housing society of the flat purchasers, it is the obligation now of the promoter to convey the right, title and interest in the building and the lands beneath, so that the legal entity will be entitled to enjoy the right, title and interest in the property. If while granting the deemed conveyance, the Competent Authority has in any manner, traveled beyond the stipulations in the agreement, and the grievance of the petitioners is that a larger property is allowed to be claimed by the society contrary to the covenant-and-recitals of the two- agreements, then the remedy of the petitioners even in terms of two decisions of this court in Tushar Jivram Chauhan v State of Maharashtra, (2015) 4 Mah LJ 867 and Mazda-Construction Company v Sultanabad Darshan CHS Ltd., 2012 SCC. OnLine Bom 1266 relied upon by Mr. Khandeparkar is not to file a writ petition under Article 226 in this court, but to approach competent civil court and establish this right, title and interest in relation to the larger property. While establishing and seeking to prove it, the petitioners can also allege that contrary to the Development Agreement and a MOFA Agreement, the society claimed a larger property and relying upon those submissions the Competent Authority has granted the relief in 5/8 ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2025 21:18:48 ::: 22to24WPL30121_24.doc relation thereto. That is the prejudice caused and which the petitioners can seek a redressal thereof by approaching such a court. During the course of such proceedings, the petitioners can highlight the alleged wrongful conduct of the society in firstly bringing a suit and withdrawing it and for the same relief namely for failure to discharge MOFA obligations, then approaching the Competent Authority belatedly and obtaining the Deemed Conveyance in the absence of the petitioners. Therefore, that adjudication, if at all one can term it, and the order therein, would not be binding on the petitioners, ought to be the eventual declaration. That, they can claim irrespective of any application under Section 11 of MOFA, which has been made in this case. From the contents thereof or the observations and conclusions in the impugned order, we are of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the competent civil court is not barred, despite such document being placed on record and relied upon by respondent no. 3. The Civil court will adjudicate the issue of right, title and interest of the petitioners in the larger property by independently applying its mind and on a total appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence before it. Once all such remedies are intact then, we do not think that in writ jurisdiction we should entertain such a dispute."
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 49 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1