Search Results for "Section 114 CPC"

412 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 412 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Rejects Trial Court's Dismissal of Temporary Injunction. Agreement of Sale for Rs.10.75 Crore with Rs.5 Crore Advance — Prima Facie Case and Balance of Convenience in Favor of Plaintiff-Appellant.

The appellant, M/s. Sanjeevini Developers and others, filed a miscellaneous first appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Examines Challenge to Commercial Court’s Dismissal of Section 34 Petitions Upholding Arbitral Awards on Escalation Claims. Dispute Arises Out of Delays in Five Hospital Renovation Projects Undertaken by Contractor and Alleged Breach of Contract by Government Entities.

The appellant, a contractor, was the successful bidder for 14 projects relating to the renovation and expansion of various government hospitals in Kar...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Possession Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Licensee Defendants Failed to Prove Independent Title; Suit for Possession Based on Title Maintainable Without Prior Revocation of License.

The present second appeal was filed by the original defendants against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2022 passed by the District Judge-1, Nagpur...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Regular Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Concurrent Findings of Courts Below Upheld. Substantial Question of Law Not Arising as Courts Below Correctly Appreciated Evidence and Applied Section 100 CPC.

The appellant, Sri Masood Ahamed Baig, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the judgment...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Allows Correction of Clerical Error in MACT Judgment — Mistake in Identifying Driver as Owner of Vehicle. Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Tribunal's refusal to correct error set aside; liability shifted to insurance company.

The petitioners, original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in a Motor Accident Claim Petition, challenged an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Defendants to File Written Statement Beyond 120 Days in Pre-2015 Commercial Suit. Mandatory timeline under Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not apply retrospectively to suits filed before the Act and transferred to Commercial Division.

The Bombay High Court addressed a preliminary legal question in a Notice of Motion arising from a Commercial Suit. The suit was originally filed in 20...