Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Dosti Corporation VS Sea Flama Co-operative Housing Society...
Checking relevance for Promoters & Builders Association of Pune VS Pune Municipal Corporation...
Checking relevance for R. k. Chavan Infrastructure Pvt Ltd VS State Of Maharashtra...
Checking relevance for R. K. Chavan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai...
Checking relevance for Mafatlal Industries Ltd. VS Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai...
2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1676 : The court held that the revocation of the Letter of Intent (LOI) was impermissible because the petitioners had completed the work as per the LOI and the respondents (Corporation) had already recorded the completion and issued the Completion Certificate. The court emphasized that the respondents had taken possession of the completed project, and the issuance of the Completion Certificate by the Corporation confirmed that the work was finished in accordance with the LOI. This establishes that the completion certificate must be issued in a timely manner upon completion of work, and failure to do so cannot be used to deny entitlement to TDR when the work has been completed and the certificate has been issued.Checking relevance for Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune VS Dinanath Dattatraya Borkar and others...
Checking relevance for Faqir Chand Gulati VS Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. ...
2008 5 Supreme 76 : The builder is duty bound to obtain and furnish the Completion certificates (C&D) to the land owner. If the building constructed is contrary to the bye-laws and sanctioned plan or if deviations are beyond permissible compoundable limits, the completion certificate and C&D forms will not be issued. The builder cannot escape the obligation to secure the completion certificate and provide it to the owner, even if he has only applied for it. The builder must rectify deviations, bring them within permissible limits, and ensure compliance with municipal laws to obtain the certificate. Failure to do so makes the builder liable to compensate the complainant for all loss or damage. The obligation to secure the completion certificate is implied in the builder''''s duty to construct in accordance with the sanctioned plan and comply with legal requirements.Checking relevance for CIDCO VS Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar...
Checking relevance for Wasim Beg VS State Of U. P. ...
1998 3 Supreme 21 : Under the Service Rules in force, confirmation of an employee after the probationary period requires the issuance of a certificate by the appointing authority. In the absence of such a certificate, the employee may still be considered confirmed if they have satisfactorily completed the probationary period and have been treated as a regular employee by the employer. In this case, the appellant was considered to have satisfactorily completed his probation on 9.1.1979 and was treated as a regular employee from 10.1.1979, despite the non-issuance of a formal completion certificate. The court held that the failure to issue the certificate did not prevent confirmation, as the employer''''s conduct and internal recognition of the employee''''s status as regular established confirmation. Therefore, the completion certificate must be issued in a timely manner to formalize confirmation, but its absence does not necessarily prevent the employee from being deemed confirmed if other indicia of completion and regular employment exist.Checking relevance for Mridul Dhar (Minor) VS Union Of India...
2005 2 Supreme 658 : The States/Union Territories shall complete the admission process of first round of State Level Medical/Dental College admission by 25th July, i.e. a week before start of second round counseling or allotment of seats under All India Quota. The correct vacancy position shall be intimated by the Chief Secretary to the DGHS by 26th July. It shall be verified by the Head of the Institution/or Head of the Medical Institution/Health Department in the State. The time schedule provided in Regulations shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which defaulting party would be liable to be personally proceeded with.Checking relevance for Swarnam Ramachandran VS Aravacode Chakungal Jayapalan. ...
Checking relevance for Management Of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore: State of Karnataka VS Ksrtc Staff And Workerss Federation: Management Of Ksrtc...
1999 2 Supreme 150 : The Pay Roll Check-off Facility granted to the Union by a binding settlement dated 28th July, 1988, could not be withdrawn by the Management unilaterally during the subsistence of the settlement. The settlement remained in force as long as the Union was recognized as the sole negotiating agent, which was not terminated by mutual agreement or supersession by a rival union. The Corporation''''s unilateral notification dated 21st September, 1993, attempting to withdraw the facility, was held to be ultra vires and invalid because it violated Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which requires either mutual agreement or a two-month notice for termination. Therefore, the completion certificate (or continuation of the facility) by the Corporation must be maintained in time, as per the binding settlement, and cannot be unilaterally revoked without compliance with legal procedures.
