Search Results for "Rule 12(9)"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Incredible Dying Declaration...
Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under Section 182 IPC for Lack of Val...

Search Results for "Rule 12(9)"

1378 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1378 result(s)

High Court

Telangana High Court Dismisses Writ Petitioner in Debt Recovery Cross-Examination Dispute. Rule 12(9) of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 Requires Reasoned Order and Sufficient Ground Before Allowing Cross-Examination; Under-Valuation Under SARFAESI Act Cannot Be Re-Litigated in RDB Act Original Application.

6 Aug 2026

The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad dealt with a writ petition arising from debt recovery proceedings. The petitioner was a guarant...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Application to Condone Delay in Filing Written Statement in Commercial Suit — Mandatory 120-Day Limit Under Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Applies. Court holds that the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC as amended by Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is a special provision for commercial disputes and overrides the Bombay High Court Original Side Rules, 1980.

10 Jun 2024

The case involves a Notice of Motion filed by the defendants (applicants) in a commercial suit before the Bombay High Court, seeking to quash the orde...

High Court

NOTICE OF MOTION COMMERCIAL DIVISION NO. 196 OF 2018

27 Feb 2019

...

High Court

Bombay High Court Decides Common Question of Law in Consolidated Commercial Suits and Interim Applications. The Court Interprets Provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in the Context of Multiple Suits Involving Banking, Media, and Other Commercial Disputes.

27 Feb 2019

...

High Court

KAHC010028642011_1

23 Sep 2014

...

High Court

High Court Reconsiders Validity of Appellate Side Rule on Marathi Translations After Earlier Division Bench Held It Unconstitutional. Larger Bench Examines Whether Litigants Were Heard Before Rule Declared Null and Void Under Article 348.

7 May 2010

The matter arose from a writ petition filed by a practicing advocate who was prevented by the High Court Registry from filing a petition without first...

High Court

Bombay High Court Delivers Judgment in Cross Appeals Over Interpretation of Trust Deed and Maintainability of Originating Summons. The Court Considers Whether Questions Pertaining to Trust Administration Fall Within the Exclusive Domain of the Charity Commissioner Under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.

6 Nov 2012

This judgment arose from cross appeals against a Single Judge's order dated 5 March 2012 in an Originating Summons filed by Charu K. Mehta, a permanen...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Amendment of Plaint and Impleadment of Parties in Property Dispute — Amendment Sought Before Commencement of Trial Allowed as No Prejudice Caused. Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits liberal amendment before trial; impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC allowed for complete adjudication.

1 Aug 2014

The plaintiffs, Sharayu Ramkrishna Mhatre and Anjali Deepak Karnik, filed a suit (Suit No. 1964 of 2012) in the Bombay High Court seeking a declaratio...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Dismissal of Suit for Want of Prosecution Due to Non-Service of Defendants — Court Holds That Dismissal Under Order IX Rule 5 CPC Requires Willful Default or Negligence, Not Mere Failure to Serve. The court restored the suit, emphasizing that the plaintiffs had made efforts to serve the defendants and had filed a Chamber Summons for substituted service, which was pending.

29 Jan 2018

The appellants, M/s. Jain Developers and others, filed Suit No. 2808 of 2008 in the Bombay High Court seeking a declaration that there was a valid and...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses PIL Challenging Appointment of Special Counsel in Customs and Excise Matters. Rule 9 of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 and Rule 12 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 held not ultra vires.

19 Jan 2015

The petitioner, an advocate enrolled in the Karnataka State Bar Council, filed a Public Interest Litigation in 2014 challenging an endorsement dated 2...

1 2 3

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)