Writ Petition Nos.4936, 6015, 6514 & 6795 of 2025 &
26 Mar 2025...
Search Results for "Indore Municipal Act"
150 result(s) found
Found 150 result(s)
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petition Quashing Seizure Order Under Section 67(2) of CGST Act Due to Non-Compliance with Mandatory Requirements. Seizure of cash from residential premises of an employee without proper authorization and recording of reasons held invalid, cash ordered to be returned.
20 Feb 2024The petitioners, B. Kusuma Poonacha and J K Manjunath, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High C...
- 86
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Compensation Under RFCTLARR Act, 2013 for Land Acquired in 1979. Non-Payment of Compensation and Lack of Notice Constitute Continuing Wrong, Entitling Petitioner to Compensation Under the 2013 Act.
12 Jul 2023The petitioner, Nandkumar s/o Tukaram Janrao, filed a writ petition seeking compensation for his agricultural land admeasuring 12 R from Gut No. 104 a...
- 26
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Allows Appeals by State and Development Corporation in Land Acquisition Lapse Dispute - High Court's Declaration of Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Set Aside for Reconsideration.
11 Apr 2023The Supreme Court addressed a group of appeals filed by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and the State ...
- 131
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Allows DDA Appeal in Land Acquisition Lapse Case — High Court Order Set Aside. Compensation Non-Payment Does Not Automatically Trigger Deemed Lapse Under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 When Possession Has Been Taken.
9 Dec 2022The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had declared t...
- 80
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Secured Creditor's Priority Over Sales Tax Dues in MVAT Act Attachment Dispute. State Bank of India's mortgage charge on borrower's property held superior to VAT recovery under Section 32 of MVAT Act, 2002, following Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala ratio.
17 Dec 2020The State Bank of India (SBI), a secured creditor, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the attachment of a propert...
- 18
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeal in Land Acquisition Case — Appellants Failed to Prove Title and Possession. Land Acquisition Under KIAD Act Upheld as Appellants Were Not Owners and Compensation Was Already Paid to Recorded Owner.
17 Aug 2020The appellants, Sri K. Srinivas Murthy and Smt S.V. Padma, filed a writ appeal against the order of a Single Judge dismissing their writ petition chal...
- 102
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Sales Tax Attachment on Property Purchased in SARFAESI Auction — Priority of Secured Creditor Over Crown Debt. Attachment order set aside as property was sold by secured creditor under SARFAESI Act before attachment, and sales tax dues do not have priority over secured creditor's rights under Section 26E of SARFAESI Act.
16 Oct 2015The petitioners, Sherwood Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and its shareholder, challenged an attachment order dated 29th April 2013 passed by the Sales Tax Officer ...
- 134
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal of Daily Wage Workers Seeking Reinstatement Under Kalelkar Award. Workers Held Not Covered by Award but Entitled to Retrenchment Compensation Under Chapter VA of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
22 Mar 2013The case involves an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dated 15.10.19...
- 104
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Suit for Specific Performance of Oral Agreement for Sale of Basement Premises. Agreement Not Proved and Relief Barred by Limitation and Doctrine of Part Performance.
4 Feb 2005The plaintiffs, a partnership firm, filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement dated 30.11.1977 for the purchase of a basement-cum-god...
- 110
