https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198812 The court ruled against the plaintiffs in both suits, denying their request for an ad interim injunction and vacating the interim order in one suit. It was found that the suit property was not in commercial use before 1962 and had unauthorized constructions. The court held that tenants were not entitled to notice under the DMC Act and that the Master Plan-2000 was constitutional. The plaintiffs were deemed to have made material concealment of facts and were advised to seek remedies through the appellate tribunal. The court emphasized the need to prevent misuse of judicial processes by unscrupulous builders in similar cases. en-us Thu, 18 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Feb 2018 16:17:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198812 The court ruled against the plaintiffs in both suits, denying their request for an ad interim injunction and vacating the interim order in one suit. It was found that the suit property was not in commercial use before 1962 and had unauthorized constructions. The court held that tenants were not entitled to notice under the DMC Act and that the Master Plan-2000 was constitutional. The plaintiffs were deemed to have made material concealment of facts and were advised to seek remedies through the appellate tribunal. The court emphasized the need to prevent misuse of judicial processes by unscrupulous builders in similar cases. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 18 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198812