Search Results for "directory not mandatory"

678 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 678 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Appeal under Section 91 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 against Registrar's order permitting delayed evidence affidavit

The Bombay High Court heard an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks allowing a delaye...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Sanction and Cognizance in UAPA Case — No Infirmity Found in Sanction Order or Cognizance Order. Court upholds validity of suo-motu sanction under Section 45(2) of UAPA and cognizance order under Section 120B IPC read with UAPA and CLA Act.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Fuleshwar Gope challenging the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court which refused to quash the sanctio...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Holds Section 143-A of Negotiable Instruments Act Directory — Interim Compensation Requires Recording of Reasons. Court clarifies that Section 143-A is not mandatory and reasons must be recorded for quantum under Section 143-A(2).

The judgment arises from two criminal writ petitions filed by Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar (accused) against Laxmikant Govind Joshi (complainant) under the...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Considers Legality of Customs Broker Licence Suspension Due to Delay in Submitting Inquiry Report. Interpretation of Regulation 20(5) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 — Whether Time Limit of 90 Days for Inquiry Report is Mandatory or Directory.

A group of customs appeals was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, against various customs broker licence holders before...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

KAHC010159832015_1

...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Validity of 50% Reservation for Women in Gram Panchayats — Rule 3(1)(c) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Reservation of Seats for Women) Rules, 1995 Held Intra Vires the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and Article 243D of the Constitution.

The case involves a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Shri Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale against the judgment of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dis...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Addresses Conflicting Precedents on Procedural Mandates for No Confidence Motions Under Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. Reference to Larger Bench Examines Whether Formal Motion and Seconding Requirement Under Rule 17 of Meeting Rules is Mandatory or Directory.

The appeal before the Bombay High Court arose from a no confidence motion passed against the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Theur, Pune. The appellant, wh...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Compromise Decrees Passed Without Appointment of Representatives Under U.P. Court of Wards Act. Section 56 of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912, Held to be Directory and Not Mandatory, Validating the Compromise Decrees.

The dispute arose from two cross-suits between the appellant, proprietor of Ganeshpur Estate, and the respondent, proprietor of Ramnagar Estate, conce...