Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.36 seconds)
Veena H. Hinduja And Anr vs Hiranandani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ... on 9 September, 2019 cites

Mohinder Rijhawani And 2 Ors vs Hiranandani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ... on 30 July, 2019

28. One area of disagreement between Hiranandani Constructions and the Society on the one hand and the contesting Defendants on the other is the rate they are to pay for the extra area they have sought to purchase. The contesting Defendants claim that the rate of Rs.16,800, though already discounted, is too high. They also say it does not accord with the Development Agreement. Then these Defendants claim that there is a dispute about the 10% balcony area, and whether or not it should included in the computation of the carpet area. They also contend that Hiranandani Constructions owes these Defendants some amounts and therefore they are entitled to an adjustment; but this argument seems to be predicated on an assumption that the Defendants' contentions regarding the 10% balcony area is true and is accepted. Finally, it is submitted that Page 23 of 32 9th September 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2019 20:25:31 ::: Mohinder Rijhwani & Ors v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors & Veena Hinduja v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors appl 142-19+J(1).doc the beneft of the newly introduced fungible FSI concept is not available to these appellants.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Veena H. Hinduja And Anr vs Hiranandani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ... on 30 July, 2019

28. One area of disagreement between Hiranandani Constructions and the Society on the one hand and the contesting Defendants on the other is the rate they are to pay for the extra area they have sought to purchase. The contesting Defendants claim that the rate of Rs.16,800, though already discounted, is too high. They also say it does not accord with the Development Agreement. Then these Defendants claim that there is a dispute about the 10% balcony area, and whether or not it should included in the computation of the carpet area. They also contend that Hiranandani Constructions owes these Defendants some amounts and therefore they are entitled to an adjustment; but this argument seems to be predicated on an assumption that the Defendants' contentions regarding the 10% balcony area is true and is accepted. Finally, it is submitted that Page 23 of 32 9th September 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2019 20:25:31 ::: Mohinder Rijhwani & Ors v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors & Veena Hinduja v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors appl 142-19+J(1).doc the beneft of the newly introduced fungible FSI concept is not available to these appellants.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990

35. Most importantly, this is in full comport with the settled law from Warden v Warden onwards. In our view, this is not just faultless. The Kumar Khaitan test is fully met: "one set of parties to the litigation had altered the status quo, and justice demanded that the status quo ante be restored." In our view, the learned single Judge's decision sufers from no infrmity, let alone perversity or being contrary to law. To the contrary, it is exactly in conformity with settled law. To our mind, the decision is faultless; and for more reasons than one is admirable, and possibly an object lesson in how an interim order in such case ought to be fashioned: balancing rival claims, and yet ensuring that the interests of the majority do not sufer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 492 - L M Sharma - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr on 28 July, 1982

32. The fnal dimension to the matter is the detailed discussion in the impugned order in regard to the principles underlying cooperative societies and the rationale of the governing Maharashtra 8 1858 Dears & Bell 468 : 169 ER 1084 : 7 Cox CC 454. 9 See also: State of Maharashtra v Ramdas Srinivas Nayak, (1982) 2 SCC 463, and Urviben Chiragbhai Shah v Vijaybhai Shambubhai Joranputra, (2011) 12 SCC 582, where the Daman Singh principle, though distinguished in cases involving tribunals, was said to fully apply to courts of record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 529 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Urviben Chiragbhai Sheth vs Vijaybhai Shambhubhai Joranputra & Ors on 26 April, 2011

32. The fnal dimension to the matter is the detailed discussion in the impugned order in regard to the principles underlying cooperative societies and the rationale of the governing Maharashtra 8 1858 Dears & Bell 468 : 169 ER 1084 : 7 Cox CC 454. 9 See also: State of Maharashtra v Ramdas Srinivas Nayak, (1982) 2 SCC 463, and Urviben Chiragbhai Shah v Vijaybhai Shambubhai Joranputra, (2011) 12 SCC 582, where the Daman Singh principle, though distinguished in cases involving tribunals, was said to fully apply to courts of record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1   2 Next