Search Results for "shopping complex"

208 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 208 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Against Revisionary Authority on Jurisdiction Ground. Cause of Action Arises at Place of Revisionary Authority's Office Under Article 226(2) of Constitution of India, Not Where Original Adjudication Order Was Passed.

The Bombay High Court dealt with a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of six writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Revision...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Refund of Stamp Duty Despite Delay in Filing Application Under Section 48(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act. Limitation Bars Remedy Not Right, State Cannot Retain Double Stamp Duty on Same Transaction.

The petitioner, Nanji Dana Patel, entered into a development agreement with Keshav Krishanlal Syngal on 3 March 2014, paying stamp duty of Rs.78,65,00...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Industrial Dispute Reference Under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Government's Satisfaction for Reference Not Open to Judicial Review on Merits.

The judgment pertains to two writ petitions filed by Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. and Shangrila Food Products Ltd. challenging the order of reference ma...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Against GST Appellate Orders Due to Non-Constitution of Tribunal. Failure to Constitute Appellate Tribunal Under Section 112 of MGST Act Renders Alternative Remedy Ineffective, Entitling Assessees to Direct Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226.

The petitioners, Gulf Oil Lubricants India Ltd. and Dinesh Engineers Limited along with Dinesh K. Kargal, filed writ petitions under Article 226 of th...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Section 9 Petition for Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction in Arbitration Dispute. Court holds that no part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction as contract was executed and performed in Chennai, and arbitration venue was Chennai.

The petitioner, M/s. Roman Tarmat Ltd., filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an injunction restrain...