AI Overview...

W.P. No. 712 of 2009 and W.P. No. 3013 of 2009 involve disputes between landowners and a developer regarding land possession and related legal questions. The landowners in W.P.712 of 2009 challenge the correctness of certain actions or decisions, with the court noting the parties' identities and their respective claims V. Kamala VS A. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad - Andhra Pradesh, K RAJIV ETC vs M/S KAMALA BUILDERS & ORS ETC - Supreme Court, MUSTAFA FAKRUDDIN BASTA vs M/S SUMER ASSOCIATES & ORS - Allahabad.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh examined these writ petitions, with references to earlier judgments and procedural aspects, including the court's observations on the contractual relationship (or lack thereof) between landowners and the complainant, and the timeline of possession as per the agreement. The court held that there was no privity of contract between the landowners and the complainant, and possession was to be handed over by 31/12/2009, which was admittedly prior to that date MUSTAFA FAKRUDDIN BASTA vs M/S SUMER ASSOCIATES & ORS - Allahabad.
The legal proceedings also touched upon issues of land possession timelines, contractual obligations, and the validity of agreements, with references to relevant case law such as Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab and Shivam Sundaram Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2000, 2009 SCC cases) to interpret contractual and procedural correctness Bahar Murtaza Fazal Ali VS Rohini Wahi Alias Roohani - Himachal Pradesh.
Additional references include personal disputes and maintenance issues, highlighting that the courts consider the financial and social circumstances of parties, as seen in the case involving Akanksha Jain, where the court emphasized that parental financial status is immaterial in maintenance calculations Sitara Devi VS State of U. P. - Allahabad.

Analysis and Conclusion:
The core issue in W.P. No. 712 and 3013 of 2009 revolves around land possession, contractual obligations, and legal correctness of actions taken by the parties involved. The Andhra Pradesh High Court's rulings indicate a focus on the contractual timelines and the absence of privity between landowners and the complainant, emphasizing adherence to agreed timelines for possession. The case also underscores the importance of procedural correctness and the interpretation of contractual clauses in land disputes. Personal disputes and maintenance matters are addressed separately, with courts considering relevant case law for guidance. Overall, these cases exemplify the judicial approach to resolving land ownership and contractual disputes through detailed legal scrutiny and adherence to procedural norms.

Search Results for "W P no 712 and 3013 of 2009"

V. Kamala VS A. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad

2010 0 Supreme(AP) 219 • India - Andhra Pradesh

A.GOPAL REDDY, NOUSHAD ALI

Questioning the correctness of the same, the landowners have filed W.P.No.712 of 2009 and the developer filed W.P.No.3013 of 2009. ... 9. ... and respondents 3 to 5 in W.P.No.712 of 2009 (land owners) and costs of Rs.5,000/-. ... Sri M.VDurga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.712 of 2009 contends that petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 in W.P.No.712 of 2009 are landowners and they ente....

K RAJIV ETC vs M/S KAMALA BUILDERS & ORS ETC

• India - Supreme Court of India

712/2009 & WP No. 3013/2009 & dated 30.4.2010 RWPMP No. ... and 3013 of 2009. ... 10883/2010 in WP No. 712/2009 & RWPMP No. 12742/2010 in WP No. ... 3013/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF A.P AT HYDERABAD) dated 19.3.2010 passed by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 712

2021 0 Supreme(All) 660 • India - Allahabad

J. J. MUNIR

The parties were married, according to Hindu rites, on 17th April, 2009. There are allegations by the wife that she was subjected to cruelty, both mental and physical, in connection with demand of dowry. ... Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. ... The deduction of Rs.15,000/- towards provident fund, Rs.30/- towards Insurance, Rs.250/- towards CGHS, Rs.4832/- towards house rent and an LI....

Bahar Murtaza Fazal Ali VS Rohini Wahi Alias Roohani

2019 0 Supreme(HP) 312 • India - Himachal Pradesh

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

Parameshwaran Pillai and another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712, Baldev Singh and others vs. ... So far addition of prayer with regard to validity of Will dated 14.4.3013 is concerned, issue No. 10 referred supra has already been framed and it would hardly make any difference that evidence at first instance is led by defendant or the plaintiff. ... Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Ltd. and another reported in (2009)2 SCC 363 wherein it is held by the Apex Court that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been couched in the mandatory form wher....

MUSTAFA FAKRUDDIN BASTA vs M/S SUMER ASSOCIATES & ORS

• India - National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Advocate for opponent no.4 cited judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.712 and 3013 of 2009 in which it was held by Hon’ble High Court that there was no privity of contract between landowners and complainant ... As per the said agreement, possession was to be handed over latest by 31/12/2009. ... , admittedly prior to 31/12/2009 which was an agreed date of possession as per the said agreement. ... These opponents further submitted that as per clause 7 of the ....

SMT. SITARA DEVI vs State of U.P. AND ANOTHER

• India - Allahabad

Rs.250/- towards CGHS, Rs.4832/- towards house rent and an Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712

DUNDAPPA S/O BALAPPA GONDI v/s THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 30339 • India - High Court of Karnataka

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

SRI. THURUNAS KRISHNACHARI SURESH v/s THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 31848 • India - High Court of Karnataka

S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

KIRPALSINGH JUNGBAHADURSINGH CHHABADA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

• India - Gujarat

, 4.10.2009, 5.10.2009 and 3.11.2009. ... , 6.7.2009 and 1.12.2009. ... and 12.3.2009. ... Muliyana till 18.4.2009. ... with Sessions Cases No.236/2009, 241/2009, 242/2009, 243/2009, 245/2009, 246/2009 and p style="position:absolute;white-space

STATE OF GUJARAT vs NARESH AGARSINH CHHARA

• India - Gujarat

Filter by Legal Phrase

Legal Issues on Supreme Today AI

approbate-and-reprobate-key-legal-doctrine-explained vague-threatening-phone-calls-why-they-fail-in-court does-scc-own-copyright-on-full-text-judgments g-o-ms-no-108-tn-salesman-packer-recruitment-rules article-226-vs-227-key-differences-in-high-court-powers judgments-on-one-time-gna-charges-in-india tip-judicial-vs-executive-magistrate-rules-explained can-a-sole-dissenting-member-block-society-redevelopment how-to-sue-fake-facebook-accounts-for-defamation-in-india illustrations-person-dominating-will-in-indian-law perusal-in-court-orders-what-it-means-in-law litigant-vigilance-essential-duty-in-court-proceedings what-to-do-if-company-suit-signatory-dies renting-house-without-rent-agreement-in-india-risks stay-on-money-realization-after-ejectment-is-it-possible