Search Results for "Section 95(2)"

108 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 108 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Negligence and Liability Upheld. Claimant's injuries and treatment evidence sufficient to affirm MACT award under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The case arises from a motor accident that occurred on 27.11.2015 at 11:30 p.m. when a Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.KA-38-M-2752, driven by its...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Consumer Dispute Over Partnership Investment — Complaint Not Maintainable Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as Complainant Was a Partner and Transaction Was Commercial. Partner Cannot Be a Consumer; Legal Heirs of Deceased Partner Not Liable in Consumer Forum.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the legal heirs of a deceased partner against the concurrent orders of the consumer fora directing them ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Cooperative Society Dispute Due to Civil Nature. Allegations of Forgery and Cheating Under Sections 465, 467, 471, 420, 120-B IPC Not Made Out as Dispute Pertains to Allotment of Flats Among Members.

The petitioner, Smt. Sudha Banarasilal Sharma, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Directs Consideration of Representation for Land Conversion Under Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 — Petitioner's Application Under Section 95(2) Must Be Decided Within Three Months.

The petitioner, Abdul Rehman S/o Gousuddin Bidri, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Landlord's Challenge to Cancellation of NOC for Redevelopment Due to Misrepresentation of Tenant Status. Landlord's Failure to Disclose Correct Residential Status of Tenants Renders Permission Void Ab Initio Under DCR 33(7) and MHADA Act.

The petitioners, Dahyabhai Papers & Boards Pvt. Ltd. and another, owned a dilapidated cessed building in Mumbai. They applied for redevelopment under ...