Find a Lawyer

MRS. TASNIM MALIK versus SECRETARY COOPERATIVES

Article 199 Constitution was an allotment in petitioner's possession - under the registered sale deed executed by the Housing Society, 11 11 Housing Society cases were badly covered by fraud cases and 153 allotments thirteen years after 1990. There were no plots. Referring to the applicant's possession of the plot, the Society tried to reopen the applicant's case in 2003 that the applicant was given possession of another allotment plot, despite the fact that the defendant was also an allottee. Was never heard of. At any stage it was justified that the interest of both parties should have been considered before reaching a decision in the matter and that the respondent was not out of the allotment limit without the opportunity of hearing the facts alleged by the respondents. Cannot be closed. If the respondent crosses this barrier, he or she will need to meet the applicant's defense, on the other hand, on the question of Lux punctuality, the fraudulent deprivation against the Society and Lux Standi and the respondent against the Allottee record. Bhagat has shown that there is also a factual dispute over the question of limitations which may require recording of the evidence. In the appeal observation, this observation correctly demanded from the authorities that the defendant be bound by the contention. Does not work, however it is not confirmed because it is not based on finding a realistic conflict. Nor has it been said in relation to any particular law. Therefore, the remand proceedings will not have any effect on the authorities in respect of which the Appellate Court's remand order will be retained. advocate for immigration from Piaro goth lawyer