Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (1.33 seconds)
Reliance Industries Ltd. And Anr. vs The Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 8 April, 2026 cites

Raghuleela Builders Private Limited ... vs The Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 20 November, 2019

57. By the Judgment and Order dated 20 th November 2019, in Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Supra), the Division Bench had set aside the impugned Demand Notice dated 12 th September 2017 by holding that such a demand was not maintainable in the eyes of law. That apart, it was also observed that in view of the change in policy of the MMRDA increasing the time limit for Page 33 of 65 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:35:33 ::: Reliance-oswp-242-2018-J-R.doc completion of the building "Fit for occupation", from four years to six years, the demand for penalty/additional premium for delay in completion of construction within four years was ex-facie unreasonable, unjustified and discriminatory.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - R More - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Dhanjit Singh Sandhu on 14 March, 2014

In the case of State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Dhanjit Singh Sandhu (Supra) relied upon by Dr. Saraf, the allottees of the land had accepted the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and also took possession but they did not raise any construction within the specified time, as a result of which, due to violation of specific condition, the authority wanted to go for resumption of the plot. In that case, the allottees, after availing the benefit of extension, had later on demanded refund. It was in such context that the Apex Court has held that as per the doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" a party cannot be permitted to "blow hot and cold" at the same time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 79 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next