Search Results for "vexatious request"

286 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 286 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Review Petition with Costs in Arbitration Appointment Case. Review Petition Found Misconceived, Mischievous, and Vexatious Under Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Bombay High Court dismissed a Review Petition filed by Priyanka Communications (India) Pvt Ltd and others (the Agarwals) against an order appointi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Refers Matter to Chief Justice on Advocates' Misconduct in Vexatious SLP Filing. Advocates Filed Second SLP with Incorrect Statements After Dismissal of First, Tendered Unconditional Apology, Leading to Divergent Judicial Opinions Under Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

The Supreme Court was confronted with a case involving misconduct by advocates in filing a vexatious special leave petition. The petitioner, convicted...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Considers Petition to Quash Matrimonial Cruelty and Dowry Case. Husband Challenges Criminal Proceedings Alleging Vague Allegations and Abuse of Process.

The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending in C.C.No.19072/202...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Against Revenue Authorities for Failing to Execute Decree Despite Supreme Court Confirmation. Court Directs Tahsildar to Execute Decree Within Six Weeks, Imposes Costs for Vexatious Litigation.

The petitioner, Gangabai Ramrao Patil, entered into an agreement to sell land with the respondents in 1973. When the respondents failed to execute the...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes VAT Assessment Order for FY 2013-14 Against Luxembourg-Based Companies Due to Gross Violation of Natural Justice and Backdating of Order. Assessment order found to be pre-dated and based on no notice or hearing, rendering it null and void.

The petitioners, comprising two Luxembourg-based companies (Petitioners 1 and 2) and their Indian group company (Petitioner 3), challenged an assessme...