Near Elphinstone College vs Maharashtra Housing & Area Development on 6 March, 2014
Near Elphinstone College vs Maharashtra Housing & Area Development on 6 March, 2014
Author: S
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 417 (1.42 seconds)Madhusudanlal Narayanlal Pittie vs Maheshchandra Agarwal & Ors on 26 September, 2014
December, 2006. This was because
there were amendments to the DC Rules with regard to the grant of
FSI. The revised plans consequent upon ... amendment of DC Rules
were submitted in September, 2012.
18. NOC was for FSI 2.5. Thereafter in January, 2012 the DC
Rules came
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 vs M/S Happy Home Enterprises on 19 September, 2014
housing projects with commercial
user to the extent permitted under the DC Rules framed by the respective
local authority. In other words, it was known
Mangal Milan Co-Operative Housing ... vs Sudhir Shah And 3 Others on 12 November, 2014
decisions by all society members and
also more attributable to the DC Rules and Regulations amended in
the January 2012 that it would
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 vs M/S Happy Home Enterprises on 19 September, 2014
housing projects with commercial
user to the extent permitted under the DC Rules framed by the respective
local authority. In other words, it was known
Sharifbhai Hasambhai Sakrarayani vs State Of Gujarat & 23....Opponent(S) on 5 September, 2014
only if the permission applied for is strictly in
conformity with relevant DC Regulations. The competent
authority had no occasion to consider whether the plans ... appellants for development of their plot were
in accordance with DC Rules, 1967.
35. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case this
Shri. Akash Raibhan Patil } vs M/S. Zircon Ventures } on 8 May, 2014
constructed there at in future by acquiring TDR
permissible as per DC Rules. The reply makes further reference to the further revised
sanctioned layout plan
Commissioner Of Education Gujarat ... vs Alpana Lallubhai Patel & 4 on 15 January, 2014
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DC DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3 , 5
================================================================
CORAM
Nestle India Ltd. vs State Of Delhi & Anr. on 12 March, 2014
Rules were aligned), was complying with the law
laid down in the PFA Act and PFA Rules. It was also an admitted
position that ... 2012 Page 5 of 10
15.09.1997 by bringing changes to Rules 2 (db), 2 (dc
State Of Gujarat vs B K Raghunathan Since Deceasedthrough ... on 24 February, 2014
Respondent(s) No. 1.1
MR DC DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 4
RULE