Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)
M/S. Siddhi Real Estate Developers Thr. ... vs Shri Vinod Dhanaji Bhoir on 22 December, 2023 cites

Ece Industries Limited vs S.P.Real Estate Developers P.Ltd.& Anr on 6 August, 2009

63. To address this concern, the appellants-defendants were called upon to state as to how best they propose to secure the interest of the plaintiffs. Mr. Samdani, submitted that ready reckoner rate of the suit property was Rs. 37,500/- per sq. mtr. (2022). A two BHK built up unit commanded a price of 1.9 Crore. In my view, the plaintiffs interest deserves to be protected in such a manner that in the event they succeed, the security which the Vishal Parekar ...37 ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2023 10:07:56 ::: ao-241-2023.doc Court may obtain from the defendants does not turn out to be inadequate and illusory. Undoubtedly, the Court would be justified in passing an appropriate order of demolition of the structures as indicated in the case of ECE Industries (supra). Yet, the likely alternative relief, which the Court may grant must also be, in a sense, efficacious. The area of land comes to around 3760 sq. mtr. The value of the subject land on the basis of the ready reckoner rate Rs. 37,500/-, as indicated by Mr. Samdani, would come to Rs. 14,10,00,000/-. It is common knowledge, the ready reckoner rate does not represent the market value, in all situations. Potentiality of development also needs to be factored in.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 46 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Seshumull M. Shah vs Sayed Abdul Rashid And Others on 20 August, 1990

58] In the case of Seshumull M. Shah v. Sayed Abdul Rashid & others reported in [AIR 1991 Karnataka 273], it has been held that in every case, where a transferee for valuable consideration seeks protection under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transferee must show that the real owner had permitted the apparent owner either by express words, consent or conduct to transfer the property in favour of the transferee. In other words, it must be shown that with the consent of the true owner, the ostensible owner was able to represent himself as the owner of the property to the purchaser for value without notice.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 14 - B P Singh - Full Document
1