Search Results for "additional benefits"

3826 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 3826 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Allows Petitioners in DCR Interpretation Case Following Supreme Court's Godrej & Boyce Ruling. The Court Holds That Paragraph 6 of Appendix VII Entitles Owner to DRC Equal to Area of Constructed Amenity, Rejecting Circulars Limiting to 25%.

Background: The consolidated writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution concerning ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Validity of Maharashtra Revenue Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2020 and Directs Finalization of Seniority Lists for Deputy Collectors — Seniority to be Determined by Date of Continuous Officiation, Not by Date of Regular Promotion.

The judgment pertains to a batch of writ petitions filed by Deputy Collectors and the State of Maharashtra concerning the determination of seniority o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Delivers Judgment in Public Interest Litigation No. 47 of 2013 Regarding Change of Land Use and Allotment. The court examined the validity of modifying user of a plot from public utility to commercial and the subsequent allotment to a trust.

This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Citizen Forum For Equality, a registered NGO, challenging the modification of user of a plot in the...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

"Bombay High Court Dismisses Chamber Summons Filed to Introduce Additional Evidence in Appeal Related to Specific Performance" "Court emphasizes the discretionary nature of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and deters misuse aimed at prolonging litigation."

The Bombay High Court dismissed a Chamber Summons filed under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) of the CPC by the Appellants seeking to produce additional evide...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Pronounces Order on Constitutional Challenge to Karnataka On-demand Transportation Technology Aggregators Rules, 2016. Petitioners Assert Rules Ultra Vires Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Violative of Freedom of Trade and Commerce Under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 301 of the Constitution.

The Karnataka High Court considered a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Karnataka On-demand Transportation Techno...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Hears Writ Petitions Challenging Karnataka On-Demand Transportation Technology Aggregators Rules, 2016. Petitioners Allege Rules Are Ultra Vires Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Violate Fundamental Rights.

The writ petitions arose from the notification of the Karnataka On-Demand Transportation Technology Aggregators Rules, 2016, by the State Government o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

KAHC010069912016_1

...