Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)

Balasaheb Arjun Torbole & Ors vs The Administrator & Divnl.Commr.& Ors on 1 April, 2015

verification of the scheme are of not such magnitude. They are not as in the case of "Atesham Ahmed Khan & Ors.' (supra), and therefore, we do not find that any assistance can be derived from the Division Bench Judgment. There the Division Bench has found that the first and second petitioners before them were Chief Promoters of ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:45:06 ::: PVR 55/59 904wp2575-13grp.doc a proposed Co-operative Housing Society. The third petitioner was a developer. The first respondent -developer -Lakadawala Developers Pvt.Ltd. had submitted the earlier proposal / scheme, however, he went on making improvements therein. There were 1235 structures which were first indicated. Then, there were documents submitted by the first and second respondents showing more than 1400 structures. They claimed to have consent of 911 slum dwellers.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 11 - S K Singh - Full Document
1