KAHC010645132024_1
19 Dec 2025The present batch of writ appeals is directed against a common order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnatak...
Search Results for "extension approval"
1481 result(s) found
Found 1481 result(s)
High Court
High Court of Judicature at Bombay Examines Legality of NMMC Resolution Reserving Lands Vested in CIDCO in Draft Development Plan. The case concerns whether Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation can reserve plots vested with City and Industrial Development Corporation under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, despite CIDCO's authority to develop and auction such lands.
30 Aug 2022This public interest litigation comprised two petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, raising common issues of fact and law concernin...
High Court
Bombay High Court Disposes Pending Applications and Show Cause Notices in Scheme of Compromise Under Section 391 of Companies Act, 1956. Criminal Proceedings Under Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 Allowed to Continue Notwithstanding Sanction of Scheme.
7 Jan 2010The matter arose from a scheme of compromise and arrangement proposed by Europlast India Ltd. under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. The unsecu...
- 36
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Cancellation of Plot Allotment and Forfeiture by CIDCO — Directs Issuance of Demand Letter for Second Installment with Late Payment Charges. The court held that the cancellation was arbitrary and violative of legitimate expectation, as CIDCO itself had sought relaxation of time limits under Regulation 15 of the New Bombay Disposal Land Regulations, 1975, which was approved by the State Government.
10 Sep 2024The petitioner, M/s. Trishul Construction Co., was allotted three plots by CIDCO (respondent No.1) in 2007. The payment schedule required a first inst...
- 1086
High Court
WRIT PETITION NO. 1723 OF 2020
18 Aug 2021The dispute arose from a tender floated by respondent no.1 MIHAN India Ltd. for up-gradation, modernization, operation and management of Dr. Babasaheb...
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Quashes Transfer Order for Lack of Prior Approval Based on Recorded Reasons. Chief Minister's Discretion Under Para 9(b) of Government Order No.DPAR 22 STR 2013 is Not Absolute.
13 Nov 2018The petitioner, Sri Rajashekar M., an Extension Officer in the Department of Backward Classes Welfare, challenged an order dated 25.09.2018 passed by ...
- 116
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Insolvency Resolution Plan Implementation Dispute. The court upheld the NCLT order finding compliance with conditions precedent under the Resolution Plan, allowing implementation and extensions as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
18 Jan 2024The batch of appeals arose from orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal concerning the implementation of a Resolution Plan under the Ins...
- 180
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Municipal Corporation's Appeal Against Resolution Plan Approval in Insolvency Case — Lease Rights and Statutory Compliance Under IBC and MMC Act Upheld. The Court held that MCGM's written submissions indicating acceptance of the plan constituted consent, and the plan did not violate the MMC Act or the IBC timeline.
15 Nov 2019The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) appealed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against the order of th...
- 163
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Petition Challenging Janaushadhi Kendra Approval — No Violation of Guidelines Found. Petitioner's claim that respondent's Kendra was within prohibited distance from her own Kendra rejected as guidelines only restrict distance between two Kendras, not between a Kendra and a proposed one.
29 Apr 2025The petitioner, Smt. Savinaya, operated a Janaushadhi Kendra under the Pradhan Mantri Bharatiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana (PMBJP) in Dakshina Kannada dis...
- 51
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Assessment Order for Violation of Section 144C(11) Time Limit — DRP Directions Issued Beyond Nine-Month Period Invalid. The court held that the Dispute Resolution Panel's directions under Section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be issued within nine months from the end of the month in which the draft assessment order is received, and failure renders the assessment order void.
14 Feb 2022The petitioner, Shell India Markets Private Limited, a company engaged in retailing petroleum products and supplying lubricants, challenged an assessm...
- 84
