Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Shri. Kanayalal Madhavji Thakkar vs The Competent Authority And Ors. on 20 January, 2026 cites

Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992

23. Referring to the order of this Court in Interim Application (L) No.30513 of 2025 dated 16th October, 2025, he submitted that the effect of the said order was only to bar the remedy and not to extinguish the petitioner's right to raise a defence regarding his subsisting right to continue construction of Phases III and IV. He submitted that the findings in the said order were prima facie and not binding. To support his contention that limitation bars the remedy and does not extinguish the right, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499 .
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 265 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

M/S S And M Enterprises Thr Its Partners vs The Palazzo Building No 1 C.H.S.L Thou ... on 17 October, 2022

24. To submit that the competent authority could not grant deemed conveyance in respect of land earmarked for further construction beyond the area of the society, he relied on the judgment of this Court in S. and M. Enterprises v. Palazzo Building No.1 CHSL, 2025 SCC Online Bom 2760. He submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S K Shinde - Full Document

Flagship Infrashructure Ltd. ... vs The Competent Authority District ... on 5 March, 2021

32. The petitioner relies on Clause 27 of the promoter's agreement to contend that the promoter was obliged to execute conveyance only after completion of the entire phase. This is essentially a contractual challenge. A contractual clause cannot override a statutory mandate. Rule 9 is expressed in mandatory terms. The word "period" in Rule 9 denotes a fixed and definite span of time. Contractual terms which seek to postpone conveyance until an uncertain future event, such as completion of all phases or of an entire layout, are inconsistent with the statutory scheme and are void to the extent of that inconsistency.[See. Flagship Infrastructure Ltd. v. The Competent Authority, 2025 SCC Online Bom 1240, and Neelkanth Heights Cooperative Housing Societies Association Ltd. v. Abhinav Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 21346]
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - M S Karnik - Full Document
1