2. The development agreement does not require mandatory registration. You can provide the developer with a legal reference to the return of the document if it is only a notarized contract that announces the termination of the contract due to its delay in launching the project despite more than two years from the date of the agreement. … Repeal of development contract on June 4, 2014. In these circumstances, I believe that the opinion of the scholarly judge against the complainants does not justify interference in this… Rejection of the applicants` application for a termination (ex.5).2. The development contract was concluded between the plaintiff`s father and the defendant on February 6, 2009…. Under the above development contract, the applicants` predecessor was entitled to obtain for an amount of 1 r. crore. The accused had certain payments from the case in question. 1 crore… The unregant contract is not upheld in court.
1. By this petition, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in 1996 (short for the “Arbitration Act”), the petitioner seeks permission: to appoint a new promoter who develops the ownership of the petitioner and/or takes care of the property in question, in accordance with the freedom granted by the present Order of the Tribunal of December 23, 2014, and also seeks a referral action that prevents the respondent from advertising and processing the land in accordance with the development contract and which negotiates in one way or another a project to rehabilitate the petitioner. Some of the facts relevant to the decision on this petition are as in point 32. Since the petitioner`s buildings are in a dilapidated state, it would be in the interest of justice and the balance of accommodation in favour of the respondent that the petitioner be able to take action before any undesirable incident to designate another real estate developer and continue the rehabilitation of his properties. On the other hand, if the respondent succeeds in arbitration, the respondent would be entitled to compensation. The respondent would therefore be prejudiced. 5. The petitioner is the case where the applicant was not received until March 28, 2013, 26 months after the implementation of the development agreement and ten months after the petitioner approved the revised plans. According to the petitioner, the IOD was defective as it covered only the 56-member apartments, not 97.
The IOD in question was in the name of Kumar urban development and not on behalf of the company. 24. In a counter-response, the applicant argues that the Greater Bombay Municipal Corporation has already rejected the respondent`s application for an IOD filed in March 2011. The respondent received a much later IOD that did not comply with the provisions of the development agreement. The respondent had assured the petitioner to provide a guarantee to the bank and to incriminate TDR before the members of the petitioner evacuated the premises.