Search Results for "Joint Compromise"

427 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 427 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Disposes of Management's Appeal Against Compensation Award in Labour Dispute Following Settlement. Parties Agree to Settle All Claims for Rs.10 Lakhs as Full and Final Settlement.

The Management of Ashok Leyland Ltd. filed a writ appeal before the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 16.08.2023 in W.P.No.14791 of 2017, i...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Reversal of Temporary Injunction in Property Dispute Between Brothers. Compromise Decree for Partition Gives Defendant Right to Construct on His Share, Plaintiff Fails to Show Exclusive Possession.

The dispute arose between two brothers, Udayraj Babaso Patil (petitioner/defendant) and Pramod Babaso Patil (respondent/plaintiff), over a suit proper...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Husband's Appeal in Restitution of Conjugal Rights Case — Wife's Refusal Without Reasonable Excuse. Filing of Divorce Petition by Wife Does Not Constitute Reasonable Excuse Under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The case involves a second appeal filed by the husband (original respondent) against the judgment of the District Court, Dhule, which reversed the tri...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Family Court Order Disturbing Child Custody Based on Consent Without Welfare Inquiry. The court held that a custody order under Section 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 cannot be passed solely on consent without considering the welfare of the child.

The case involves an appeal by the father (Appellant 'A') against a Family Court order dated 15 July 2014 that disturbed the custody of his two minor ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Time Limit for Availing Input Tax Credit Under Section 16(4) of CGST Act. The court held that the time limit is mandatory and not directory, and retrospective amendments are valid.

The Bombay High Court, in a batch of writ petitions, addressed the constitutional validity and interpretation of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods an...