Search Results for "section 16(2)"

1445 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1445 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses MSEDCL Petitions Challenging Labour Court Awards in Retrenchment Compensation Cases. Employer's Failure to Pay Full Wages and Notice Pay Under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Renders Retrenchment Invalid.

The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) filed five writ petitions challenging separate awards of the Labour Court, Dhule,...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes MHADA Order in Redevelopment Dispute — Upholds Developer's Right to Fair Hearing. Section 95A of MHADA Act, 1976 Requires Compliance with Natural Justice Before Revoking Development Rights.

The petitioners, M/s Darshan Jayant Builders (a partnership firm) and its partner Pritesh M. Jain, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Cons...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Injunction in Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Case — Defendant's Logo Held Deceptively Similar to Plaintiff's Registered Logo. Well-known mark entitled to protection across classes under Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Plaintiff, Reliance Industries Ltd., filed a suit seeking injunctive reliefs against the Defendant, Concord Enviro Systems Pvt. Ltd., alleging inf...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal of Informant Against Forfeiture of Seized Cash to State in Dacoity Case — Cash to be Returned to Informant as Accused Disclaimed Ownership. The court held that when accused disclaim seized cash, it should be returned to the victim-informant under Section 454 CrPC.

The appellant, Nanasaheb Nirmal, was the original informant in a dacoity case. He was robbed of cash and articles on 27 June 2000. During investigatio...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Amendment Application in Partition Suit. Amendment Sought After Commencement of Trial Not Allowed Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC Due to Lack of Due Diligence.

The petitioners, Hemlata Harish Bhatia and Bharat Vallabhdas Bhatia, filed a suit for partition in 2004 against the respondents, Vallabhdas Lalchand D...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Considers Appeal from Conviction Under Sections 302 and 201 IPC Based on Circumstantial Evidence. Trial Court Had Convicted Accused for Murder and Destruction of Evidence After Establishing Deceased's Identity Through DNA Test.

The appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant by the I Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Shimoga, in S.C. No.95/2012 for offences ...