Real Right - Judgment Search Results

Ponte Vs. Real

Court: US Supreme Court

Ponte v. Real - 471 U.S. 491 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491 (1985) Ponte v. Real … 558 , but "[p]rison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply." Id. at 418 U. S. 556 . Chief among

Hyacintia Real Estate Developers Private Limited vs.dlf Real Estate Bu ...

Court: Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CO. APPL. (M) 156/2016 IN THE MATTER OF: HYACINTIA REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED … Applicant No.1 / Transferor Company No.1 AND KAVICON PARTNERS LIMITED …… Applicant No.2

Venkateswara Real Estate and Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Kar)167; [1985]151ITR729(KAR); [1985]151ITR729(Karn); [1984]16TAXMAN365(Kar)

a little over Rs. 9,000 for the year 1976-77. For the year 1977-78, one does not know the real expenses claimed by the assessee under that head and yet the Tribunal did not interfere with the order

M/s Mahadhan Real Estates Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Anjali Real Estate ...

Court: Mumbai Goa

Matched in: Parties M/s Mahadhan Real Estates Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Anjali Real Estates Pvt. Limited and Others

M/s Mahadhan Real Estates Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Anjali Real Estate ...

Court: Mumbai

Matched in: Parties M/s Mahadhan Real Estates Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Anjali Real Estates Pvt. Limited and Others

Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund Vs. Dharmesh S. Jain

Court: Supreme Court of India

APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.940 OF2021IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.1668 OF2021IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.14724 OF2021Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund …Petitioner(s) Versus Dharmesh S. Jain and Anr. …Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. The present contempt petition … Arbitrator, which was passed four years back. 4.1 It is submitted by Shri Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate that right from the filing of the execution proceedings by the petitioner, at every stage, the respondents have delayed the

Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund Vs. Dharmesh S. Jain

Court: Supreme Court of India

OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION(CIVIL) NO.940/2021 IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1668/2021 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO.14724/2021 Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund …Petitioner Versus Dharmesh S. Jain and Another …Respondents/ Contemnors ORDER M.R. SHAH, J.1. Vide detailed judgment

Jawala Real Estate Pvt Ltd & Anr. versus Haresh

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [2025]6S.C.R.193

[2025] 6 S.C.R. 193 : 2025 INSC 669 Jawala Real Estate Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Haresh (Miscellaneous Application No. 2426 of 2018 In Civil Appeal No. 3294 … developer - Thereagainst, complaint by the buyer - Despite order of the National Commission, the appellant created third-party rights with respect to the said apartment, and alienated the said apartment - National Commission set aside the cancellation

Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (Credai) ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [2025]10S.C.R.94

proposed real estate projects, resulting in indefinite delays in execution and completion. The appellants, therefore, invoking their statutory right of appeal under Section 22 of the NGT Act, have approached this court with the instant appeals. 5. … [2025] 10 S.C.R. 94 : 2025 INSC 1112 Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others (Civil Appeal No. 10043 of 2024)

Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited versus Bishop John Rodrigues and ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1379

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1379 : 2025 INSC 1016Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited v. Bishop John Rodrigues and Others (Civil Appeal No. 11008 of 2025) 22 August 2025 … the acquisition of land under Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971; whether the High Court rightly rejected the Society’s preliminary objection; whether the 2018 Amendment impacts the law laid down in Tarabai’s case; and