Search Results for "Section 24(2) lapse"

121 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 121 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Hears Appeals Against Madras High Court’s Setting Aside of Alienations and Direction to Frame Scheme for Charitable Trust. High Court Held Will Dated 27.9.1968 Was Mutual and Joint, and Alienations by Surviving Spouse Void.

These appeals arose from Original Suit No. 76 of 1981, filed by Hindu Community in General and Citizens of Gobichettipalayam as plaintiff, seeking adm...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Decree-Holders' Appeals Against Executing Court's Interim Stay Order in Execution Proceedings. Held That Executing Court Cannot Stay Execution Beyond Order XXI Rule 29 CPC and Must Follow Procedure Under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC Before Arrest.

The case involves appeals by the decree-holders (appellants) against an interim order dated 29th June 2018 passed by the Principal Sub-Judge, Kottayam...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Dismissal of Employee in Disciplinary Proceedings Due to 12-Year Delay and Denial of Documents. Dismissal Order Set Aside as Non-Supply of Inquiry Report and Documents Violated Principles of Natural Justice Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, employed as a Wireless Operator in Mysore Paper Mills Limited since before 1998, was issued a charge-sheet on 17-12-2010, nearly twelv...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Execution Proceedings — Possessory Title Not Required for Restoration Under Order XXI Rules 98-100 CPC. High Court erred in ordering restoration of possession without determining whether respondent had any right to possession under Order XXI Rules 98-100 CPC.

The Supreme Court considered an appeal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had allowed the appeal of the respondent (Lt. Col. Nahar ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Tahsildar's Endorsement Refusing Mutation in Land Revenue Dispute — Petitioners' Title and Possession Upheld Despite Alleged Government Land. Mutation Entry Does Not Confer Title; Tahsildar Must Hear Parties Before Refusing Mutation Under Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

The petitioners, Smt. R. Suguna and Siddarth Sarnaik, purchased 8 acres of land in Sy.No.42 of Navarathna Agrahara, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk,...