Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
16 judgments · newest first · showing 1–16
The petitioner, Rose Villa Co‑operative Housing Society Ltd, sought a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance of the land and building under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA). The developer, Can Enterprises Pvt Ltd, was under a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process …
The petitioners, led by Jitendra Champalal Sanghvi, feared that the housing project under MHADA might be transferred to another developer, resulting in revised plans that could increase the number of ground‑floor shops. They contended that such a change would render the lottery conducted by the …
The petitioners, a family of six, challenged orders issued by MHADA directing them to obtain amended plans, allocate a 185 sq ft shop area to the Dave family, and surrender surplus built‑up area of 53.36 sq m to the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board. The orders were based on a …
The Pune Housing and Area Development Board (the Board) sought a writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to set aside an order of the Appellate Officer that dismissed the Board's appeal and allowed the respondent's appeal, thereby staying an eviction order. The dispute concerned a flat …
The Bombay High Court initiated suo motu proceedings pursuant to the Supreme Court's direction in Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. to conduct a performance audit of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The Court heard the …
The appellants, who were transit camp tenants, challenged notices issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, seeking to evict them from a plot they claimed was a MHADA layout and …
S. Rajani, the appellant, owned a residential tenement and alleged that S. Smita, the first respondent, had constructed illegal rooms on an open vacant site in the same building, infringing Rajani's easements of light, air, privacy and water supply. Rajani filed a regular civil suit seeking removal …
Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar, the wife of respondent No.8, sought a writ directing the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to re‑house her in two flats (Nos. 601 & 602) of the redeveloped building, which she claimed as her matrimonial home. The High Court dismissed the writ, …
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bars the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) from taking possession of land that was licensed to a corporate debtor under a Tripartite Joint Development Agreement during the …
The petitioners sought an interim order declaring that the acquisition of a "cessed" building by MHADA under Chapter VIII‑A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 was no longer necessary, as the landlord and tenants had entered into a development agreement while the substantive …
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the amendment of Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 (Greater Mumbai), alleging that it was being misused to demolish privately owned, sound pre‑1940 buildings and that the regulation imposed unreasonable side‑space …
The appellants, tenants under the Indian Mercantile Association, filed a writ petition under Section 103-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, seeking relief that the High Court dismissed on the ground that an alternative statutory remedy—an appeal—was available. The …
The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) constructed 165 flats but received negligible public response to its advertisements. Consequently, MHADA adopted a "Bulk Purchase Scheme" and issued a Letter of Intent on 25 October 2004 to the sole applicant, Powai Plant Co‑operative …
The petition challenged the constitutional validity of Chapter VIII‑A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, which allows acquisition of properties on payment of one hundred times the monthly rent, and argued that Article 31C of the Constitution shields the Act from attack under …
The appellant, Sam Hiring Co., a tenant occupying a shed in City Survey No. 56, challenged the acquisition of its premises under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, arguing that the structure was an independent, non‑cess‑payable building and therefore exempt from demolition. It …
The State of Maharashtra, through MHADA, filed contempt and perjury applications against P.K. Pangare alleging that he misled the Supreme Court by denying construction on land covered by a prohibitory order. Pangare had sold the land before the order, and construction was subsequently carried out by …
