Search Results for "arbitrary date"

5536 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 5536 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Tribunal Order in Service Matter Due to Inordinate Delay and Laches. Petitioner's claim for correction of promotion date after 21 years held to be stale and not maintainable.

The petitioner, a retired customs officer, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing his Original ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Electricity Board's Appeals in Illegal Disconnection Case — Board Cannot Claim Charges for Period of Its Own Wrongful Act. Initial Disconnection Without Considering Consumer's Instalment Request Violates Section 56 of Electricity Act, 2003.

The appeals arose from a dispute between the Bihar State Electricity Board (appellant) and M/s Iceberg Industries Ltd. (respondent/company) concerning...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows FCI Appeal in Appointment Dispute Over Experience Certificate Requirement. The Court held that essential eligibility criteria must be strictly complied with and subsequent production of certificates cannot cure initial deficiency.

The case involves an appeal by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) against a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court that directed FCI to appo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging CRB Order Imposing Cost Recovery Charges on CFS Operator. Policy Decision Not Subject to Judicial Review Under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

The petitioner, Sarveshwar Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit, Reverses First Appellate Court's Dismissal on Limitation and Order II Rule 2 CPC. Time was not of essence of contract and suit was not barred by limitation or res judicata.

The appellants, original plaintiffs, filed Special Civil Suit No. 51 of 1989 for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property again...