Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph

The developer should mandatorily display at the site the Sanction plan – Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State Information Commissioner Greater Mumbai & Ors. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that keeping in mind the provisions of RERA and their objective, the developer should mandatorily display at the site the sanction plan. The provision of sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the RERA require the sanction plan/layout plans along with specifications, approved by the competent authority, to be displayed at the site or such other places, as may be specified by the Regulations made by the Authority. In our view, keeping in mind the ground reality of rampant violations and the consequences thereof, it is advisable to issue directions for display of such sanction plan/layout plans at the site, apart from any other manner provided by the Regulations made by the Authority. This aspect should be given appropriate publicity as part of enforcement of RERA.(p34)

The developer should mandatorily display at the site the Sanction plan – Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State Information Commissioner Greater Mumbai & Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Whether the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is functus officio after the award has become enforceable, and is thus, prevented from considering an application for setting aside an ex parte award – Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. Vs. Phool Chand – Supreme Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Whether the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is functus officio after the award has become enforceable, and is thus, prevented from considering an application for setting aside an ex parte award – Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. Vs. Phool Chand – Supreme Court Read Post »

Once a judicial authority takes a decision under Section 8(1) of Arbitration Act declining to refer the dispute pending before it to arbitration, whether either party to the proceedings can thereafter invoke the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice under Section 11(6) of the Act – Anil s/o Jagannath Rana and others Vs. Rajendra s/o Radhakishan Rana and others – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the principles as discussed above on res judicata have been consistently followed by this Court. And the recent judgments in that regard are in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and others and in Surjit Singh and others v. Gurwant Kaur and others. Thus, once the judicial authority takes a decision not to refer the parties to arbitration, and the said decision having become final, thereafter Section 11(6) route before the Chief Justice is not available to either party.

Once a judicial authority takes a decision under Section 8(1) of Arbitration Act declining to refer the dispute pending before it to arbitration, whether either party to the proceedings can thereafter invoke the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice under Section 11(6) of the Act – Anil s/o Jagannath Rana and others Vs. Rajendra s/o Radhakishan Rana and others – Supreme Court Read Post »

Whether the award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Facilitation (MSMEDF) Council, Pune affirmed by the District Court and also by the High Court is sustainable? – Bank of India Vs. Yadav Consultancy Services (P) Ltd. And Ors. – Supreme Court of India

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Whether the award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Facilitation (MSMEDF) Council, Pune affirmed by the District Court and also by the High Court is sustainable? – Bank of India Vs. Yadav Consultancy Services (P) Ltd. And Ors. – Supreme Court of India Read Post »

Scroll to Top