Search Results for "compromise order"

1646 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1646 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Employment Under Rehabilitation Policy — Grandson Not a 'Family' Member Under R. & R. Policy, 2008. Compromise Decree Cannot Confer Right to Employment if Not Permissible in Law.

The petitioners, Dhanraj Navnath Bhoyar (petitioner No.1) and Sandhya Navnath Bhoyar (petitioner No.2), filed a writ petition challenging the communic...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Family Court Order Disturbing Child Custody Based on Consent Without Welfare Inquiry. The court held that a custody order under Section 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 cannot be passed solely on consent without considering the welfare of the child.

The case involves an appeal by the father (Appellant 'A') against a Family Court order dated 15 July 2014 that disturbed the custody of his two minor ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Upholds Appeal by Town Panchayat, Sets Aside Single Judge Order Granting Retrospective Regularization to Sanitary Worker; Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 Held Inapplicable to Employees Governed by Special Service Rules

The case involved a sanitary worker engaged on daily wage basis in the Ulundurpet Special Grade Town Panchayat from 1 January 1992. He approached the ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Refund of Court Fee in Suit for Annulment of Compromise Decree. Court Fee Refund Granted Under Section 66(2)(a) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 When Compromise Decree Is Set Aside.

The petitioners, L. Dayananda Reddy and Gayathri D., filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challengi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Impleadment Order in Suit for Declaration of Title, Holding Agreement Purchaser Under Plaintiff Neither Necessary Nor Proper Party. Court Reiterates That Plaintiff as Dominus Litis Cannot Be Compelled to Add a Stranger Against His Wishes Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

The petitioner, a company, purchased property from the legal representatives of one Kishanlal Jaiswal. The property originally belonged to Hanumantrao...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Consent Decree as Not Maintainable Under Section 96(3) CPC. Appeal Against Consent Terms Recorded Under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC Is Barred by Law.

The case involves an appeal filed by Girja Shankar G. Gupta and others against an order of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dated 18 Ju...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) Hears Appeal Against Remand Order Allowing Third Party Challenge to Consent Decree. The Court Examines Whether Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Bars an Appeal by Strangers to a Consent Decree, and Whether Allegations of Fraud Vitiate the Decree.

The appellant, Vilas Trimbak Sanap, filed a partition suit (RCS No. 499/2014) against his father and brothers (respondent Nos. 4–6) claiming a 1/4th...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Prosecution Under Sections 420 and 471 IPC Following Settlement of Loan Account Approved by Debts Recovery Tribunal — Criminal proceedings cannot continue after compromise of civil debt where no element of cheating from inception exists.

The case involves an appeal by Vijay Kumar Kela and his proprietary firm against an order of the Chhattisgarh High Court refusing to quash criminal pr...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Under Section 115 CPC Due to Alternate Remedy Under Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Order rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC affects substantive rights and is revisable under Section 34(4) of the MRC Act.

The present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed by the applicants (defendants) challenging an ...