Search Results for "concurrent hearing"

2060 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 2060 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Demolition of Unauthorised Construction in Red Zone — Deemed Sanction Under Section 238(6) of Cantonments Act, 2006 Not Available Where Initial Construction Was Illegal and Application Was Not Validly Pursued.

The petitioner, Lekha Ali Shaikh, owned a plot of land in Dehu Road Cantonment, Pune. In 2009, she constructed a 750 sq.ft structure without obtaining...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India in Jurisdictional Dispute Over Trial of IBC Offences. Held that Reference to Special Court under Chapter XXVIII of Companies Act, 2013 in Section 236(1) IBC is Legislation by Incorporation, Not Affected by Subsequent Amendment.

The appeal arises from a challenge by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) against the judgment of the Bombay High Court quashing the o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Strikes Down Caste-Based Discrimination in Prison Manuals as Unconstitutional. Prison Rules Dividing Labour and Segregating Barracks by Caste Violate Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution.

The petitioner, Sukanya Shantha, a journalist, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions for the repeal of offendi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Bus Driver in Rash Driving Case Due to Unreliable Sole Eyewitness and Contradictory Evidence. Conviction under Sections 279, 304(A) and 337 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt.

The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by Shivaji Santu Zanzad, a driver of a PMT bus, challenging his conviction under Sections 2...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Land Acquisition Compensation Case — Directs Shifting of Date for Determining Market Value Due to Inordinate Delay. Compensation to be Determined as on Date of Award Instead of Preliminary Notification Under Section 28 of KIAD Act, 1966.

The appellants, Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others, purchased residential sites in Gottigere Village, Bengaluru between 1995 and 1997. On 3rd April...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Acquits Vendor in Food Adulteration Case Due to Manufacturer's Warranty Defense. Vendor of sealed pan masala held entitled to protection under Section 19(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as he sold the product in original manufacturer's sealed package with warranty.

The appellant was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated pan...