Search Results for "Review Rules 2011"

1281 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1281 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Jurisdictional Limits on State Interference in Land Rights: State of West Bengal v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 7407 of 2012

The case arose from a dispute involving land/tenancy rights and administrative interference by State authorities in West Bengal. The High Court had se...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Madras Reviews Review Applications in Co-operative Sugar Mill Cases. No Substantive Judgment Text Available for Further Extraction.

No substantive judgment text provided; only case details are available. The case involves a batch of review applications by multiple individuals again...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Review Petition Filed by Customs Department in Customs Act Case — DRI Officers Held as Proper Officers. The Court overruled earlier decisions and upheld Section 28(11) of the Customs Act, 1962 as constitutionally valid, restoring the Department's power to issue show cause notices.

The Supreme Court, in a batch of petitions led by Review Petition No. 400 of 2021, considered the correctness of its earlier judgment in M/s Canon Ind...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court of India: Judgment on Regulation and Approval of Genetically Modified Crops. Ensuring adherence to environmental safety, legal standards, and public health in the approval process for GM crops in India.

The Supreme Court of India concerning various writ petitions filed in public interest related to the regulation and approval of Genetically Modified (...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Allows Correction of Clerical Error in MACT Judgment — Mistake in Identifying Driver as Owner of Vehicle. Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Tribunal's refusal to correct error set aside; liability shifted to insurance company.

The petitioners, original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in a Motor Accident Claim Petition, challenged an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Arbitration Matter — No Error Apparent on Face of Record in Limitation Finding. Court holds that review jurisdiction under Section 114 CPC and Order 47 Rule 1 is limited to errors apparent on record, not re-appreciation of evidence.

The review petition was filed by Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (the original respondent no.1 in Arbitration Appeal No. 6 of 2007) seeking review of ...