Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)
Shri. Bhalchandra Haribhau Tingre vs Chairman / Secretary, Kumar City ... on 30 January, 2025 cites

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

6. This Court has meticulously evaluated the submissions against the settled jurisprudence governing deemed conveyance. The legal framework, as crystallized in Mazda Construction Company v. Sultanabad Darshan CHS Ltd. (2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1266) and Zainul Abedin Yusufali Massawawala v. Competent Authority (2016 SCC OnLine Bom 6028), unequivocally delineates the Competent Authority's mandate: to ascertain whether the promoter's statutory obligation to execute conveyance under Section 11(1) of MOFA has been breached, not to adjudicate title disputes. The Authority's inquiry is confined to verifying compliance with Section 4 agreements and the procedural prerequisites under MOFA.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 49 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

M/S. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala And Others on 25 April, 1961

14. For Explanation VIII to apply, the Competent Authority must qualify as a "Court." While tribunals exercising judicial functions may sometimes be treated as courts (Harinagar Sugar Mills v. Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala, AIR 1961 SC 1669), the Competent Authority under MOFA lacks essential attributes of a civil court (e.g., power to summon witnesses, enforce decrees). It functions as a quasi-judicial tribunal confined to enforcing statutory obligations under MOFA, not adjudicating title disputes. Thus, it is not a "Court" for the purposes of Section 11 CPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 266 - J C Shah - Full Document

The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi vs Employees Of The Bharat Bank ... on 26 May, 1950

15. The Supreme Court in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd. (AIR 1950 SC 188) and Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma (1965) 2 SCR 366 outlined the distinction between courts and tribunals, emphasizing that statutory authorities discharging quasi-judicial functions sans trappings of a court (e.g., power to enforce attendance, levy fines) are not "courts" for CPC purposes. The Competent Authority, being 7 ::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2025 07:25:37 ::: 30-wp9956-2015-R.doc a creature of MOFA with limited jurisdiction, lacks the plenary powers of a civil court. Thus, the rigour of res judicata under Section 11 CPC is inapplicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 405 - H J Kania - Full Document

Associated Cement Companies Ltd vs P. N. Sharma And Another on 9 December, 1964

15. The Supreme Court in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd. (AIR 1950 SC 188) and Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma (1965) 2 SCR 366 outlined the distinction between courts and tribunals, emphasizing that statutory authorities discharging quasi-judicial functions sans trappings of a court (e.g., power to enforce attendance, levy fines) are not "courts" for CPC purposes. The Competent Authority, being 7 ::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2025 07:25:37 ::: 30-wp9956-2015-R.doc a creature of MOFA with limited jurisdiction, lacks the plenary powers of a civil court. Thus, the rigour of res judicata under Section 11 CPC is inapplicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 235 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1   2 Next