Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.37 seconds)
Marathon Next Gen Realty Limited And Anr vs The Competent Authority District ... on 18 April, 2015 cites

Ratna Rupal Co-Operative Housing ... vs Rupal Builders & Ors on 27 June, 2011

The Judgments so cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent are in the matter of Civil Suits [Jayantilal Investments and Ratna Rupal (Supra)]. However, merely because the proceedings initiated by the Society before the Competent Authority under the provisions of MOFA Act, the aspects of complicated questions of law and the facts and the requirement of passing order by the Competent Authority, based upon the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 11 to consider the relevant documents and pass order in accordance with the agreement executed under Section 4, ought not to have been overlooked in the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - R Dalvi - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs Orient Fabrics Pvt. Ltd on 25 November, 2003

The respective registered agreements for sale of each of the individual members were not annexed with the Application. As per the agreement, a Deed of Apartment was intended. The Competent Authority is bound to exercise the summary jurisdiction. [P. Malaichami (Supra), Ramesh More (Supra), Credit Suisse Vs. Allerdale Borough Council (1996) 3 WLR 894, Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd., (2004) 1 SCC 597, Union of India Vs. Valecha Engineering Limited & Anr. (WP No. 2540 of 2008, decided on 29 August 2009, Bombay High Court)] 14 The question of interpretation, if any, of the clauses between the parties and considering the scope and purpose, the Competent Authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed facts and law and so also no power to decide the disputed interpretation of the clauses, so entered into referring to the provisions of MOFA Act and/or any other Act. The remedy is elsewhere. I am not dealing ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2015 23:59:52 ::: 14 wp-11802-13.sxw with the situation, where the clauses/agreement and/or sale, agreed and settled between the parties. The Petitioners' "project" on whole land/ layout is on going project. The development/construction work is not over. By the impugned order, inspite of above, the Competent Authority has granted unspecified and undivided interest even in the whole land in the Society.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 96 - Full Document

Nahalchand Laloochand P.Ltd vs Panchali Co-Op.Hng.Sty.Ltd on 31 August, 2010

16 wp-11802-13.sxw 16 The Supreme Court Judgment in Nihaalchand Laloochand Vs. Pancholi Co-op. Hsg. Society [2010(9) SCC 536] referring to right of promoters and builders to sale parking areas, even if any, not dealt with by the Competent Authority while passing the deemed conveyance. The area and/or parking area of respective Society and/or members, excluding the other area and the right of use of remaining area by the promoter and/or builder, therefore, unless made clear by agreed terms and/or by final determination and/or adjudication, the impugned order so passed in the present facts and circumstances, would cause injustice and hardship. In future it will create complications in transferring the right, title and interest of the respective flats/apartments and the related areas, as per the existing agreement. All the parties are bound by the agreement between the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 16 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next