Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.46 seconds)The Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973
Kalpita Enclave Co-Operative Housing ... vs Kiran Builders Pvt. Ltd. on 16 August, 1985
In that regard, attention is drawn to the decision in Kalpita Enclave's case wherein after considering the decisions in the two earlier cases delivered by Apte, J. and Aggarwal, J., it was held that:
Ishwar Chinga Shetty And Anr. vs Jivanji Bhulabhai Patel Since Deceased ... on 2 September, 1983
Sunita Traders C.R.A. No. 185 of 1976, decided on 29.6.1976 (Unrep. Deci.), Smt. Neena Sudarshan Wadia v. Venus Enterprises , Ishwar Chinga Shetty v. Jivanji Bhulabhai Patel ; Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh ; Premier Automobiles v. Kambrar Shantaram and Income Tax Officer v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi as well as the decision in Kalpita Enclave's case (supra), rejected all the contentions raised on behalf of M/s. Khatri Builders and held that :
The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
Premier Automobiles Ltd vs Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke Of Bombay & Ors on 26 August, 1975
Sunita Traders C.R.A. No. 185 of 1976, decided on 29.6.1976 (Unrep. Deci.), Smt. Neena Sudarshan Wadia v. Venus Enterprises , Ishwar Chinga Shetty v. Jivanji Bhulabhai Patel ; Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh ; Premier Automobiles v. Kambrar Shantaram and Income Tax Officer v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi as well as the decision in Kalpita Enclave's case (supra), rejected all the contentions raised on behalf of M/s. Khatri Builders and held that :
Income Tax Officer vs M.K. Mohammed Kunhi on 11 September, 1968
Sunita Traders C.R.A. No. 185 of 1976, decided on 29.6.1976 (Unrep. Deci.), Smt. Neena Sudarshan Wadia v. Venus Enterprises , Ishwar Chinga Shetty v. Jivanji Bhulabhai Patel ; Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh ; Premier Automobiles v. Kambrar Shantaram and Income Tax Officer v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi as well as the decision in Kalpita Enclave's case (supra), rejected all the contentions raised on behalf of M/s. Khatri Builders and held that :
The Mohatta Nagar Co-Operative Hsg. ... vs Vishram Khimji And Sons And Ors. on 17 September, 1993
15. In Mohatta Nagar Co operative Housing Soc. Ltd. v. Vishram Khimji & Sons and Ors. 1994(3) Bom. C.R. 444 : 1994 C.T.J. 529 the main point which fell for consideration was whether the plaintiff builder had right for further construction on the suit plot of land or not. In the judgment delivered on 17.9.1993, after analysing the provisions of law contained in Section 7 and Section 7A, it was held thus :
Bina Murlidhar Hemdev And Ors vs Kanhaiyalal Lakram Hemdev And Ors on 14 May, 1999
20. The applicant has also placed reliance in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Bina Murlidhar Hemdev and
Ors. v. Kanhaiyalal Lokram Hemdev and Ors. . Therein it was observed that
prima facie plaintiffs' right to share in the land having been made out on facts, the other partners were held to be not entitled to sell the entire land to the builder since vendors cannot convey more interest than they have. It was a case where one of the owners of the property was sought to be denied his undivided share of ownership in the land. That is not the case herein. Besides, the rights of the parties are also specifically governed by the said Act and therefore any decision on the dispute between the parties has to be decided on consideration of the provisions of the said Act.