Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ
Swayam Realtors & Traders LLP – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ seeks mandamus for bifr orders registration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. bifr scheme vests property; exclude stamp adjudication delay. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. strict registration time limits; present despite insufficient stamps. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. state cannot benefit from own default; sica overrides. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. limitation excludes stamp adjudication and merger periods. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. direct registration excluding institutional delays. (Para 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT (PER HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. At the outset, we take on record the statement made on behalf of the Petitioner that the relief concerning mutation is not pressed at this stage, with liberty reserved. We also record that the correct date of the BIFR sanction order is 26th February, 2007 as mentioned by the Petitioner in separate note of statement and verified from the records.
3. The present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks, inter alia, a Writ o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
