Search Results for "compromise behind back"

337 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 337 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Public Interest Litigation to Protect Land for Government Sports Complex at Navi Mumbai. CIDCO's commercial allotment of land earmarked for sports complex quashed; State Government's decision to shift complex to remote location set aside.

The Bombay High Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Indian Institute of Architects, Navi Mumbai Center, challenging the action...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Petitioner Company in Reduction of Share Capital Case Under Sections 100-104 of Companies Act, 1956. Court-Ordered Valuation Found Plausible; Minority Objectors Failed to Prove Unfairness.

Cadbury India Limited filed a petition under Sections 100 to 104 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking sanction of a special resolution for reduction of...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Reverses Concurrent Findings of Courts Below. Held that the plaintiffs failed to prove joint family property and that the suit was barred by limitation and res judicata.

The case involves a second appeal arising from a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the plaintiffs (respondents) against the defendan...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Gujarat Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Compensation of Rs.19,92,000/- Upheld. Deceased was a 32-year-old school teacher; Tribunal's addition of 50% future prospects and multiplier of 16 affirmed as per Pranay Sethi.

The present appeal was filed by the New India Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Clai...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Suit for Specific Performance with Exemplary Costs for Suppression of Facts and Forum Shopping. Plaintiffs failed to disclose prior pending suit and obtained ex parte orders by misrepresentation, leading to dismissal and costs of Rs. 5 lakhs.

The plaintiffs, Anand Agarwal and Pramila Anand Agarwal, filed a Commercial Suit No. 614 of 2017 before the Bombay High Court seeking specific perform...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Process Against In-Laws in Section 498A Case for Lack of Specific Allegations. General and Omnibus Allegations Against Family Members Insufficient to Sustain Prosecution Under Section 498A IPC.

The petitioners, who are relatives of the husband (including parents, siblings, and their spouses), challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Ju...