Search Results for "storage violation"

425 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 425 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Delivers Judgment on Arbitration Petition Under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Petition Challenged Interim Measures Granted by Arbitral Tribunal in Terminalling Service Agreement Dispute.

The petitioner, Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co. Ltd., constructed port terminal facilities at Dahej, Gujarat, including tanks for handling and expo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay Issues Rule in Writ Petition Against Municipal Corporation's Absorption of Builder's Employees. The Court entertained the challenge under Article 226 to Resolution No. 25 and order dated 27.06.2007 absorbing 69 persons, directing final hearing forthwith.

The petitioners, 69 unemployed youths from Thane district, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Judica...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.'s Writ Petitions Against Property Tax Demands by NMMC. Court holds that property tax demands for petroleum storage tanks and pipelines are illegal and without authority of law under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.

The petitioner, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., filed three writ petitions challenging property tax demands raised by the Navi Mumbai Municipal ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Pronounces Verdict in Arbitration Petition Challenging Award That Set Aside Termination of Oil Terminal Operations Contract. Petition Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act Alleges Award is Patently Illegal as Arbitrator Disregarded Contract Terms and Misinterpreted Safety Audit Report.

The dispute arose from an Operating and Services Agreement (OSA) dated 5 May 2015 between HPCL and Aegis for management, operation and maintenance of ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Holds Section 13(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Directory — District Forum Can Extend Time for Filing Reply Beyond 45 Days in Exceptional Circumstances. The 30-day period for filing reply commences from receipt of notice by the opposite party.

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench addressed two questions referred regarding Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The first quest...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

WRIT PETITION NO. 107119 OF 2025 (APMC)

...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Considers Revision Against Summons for Offence Under Section 92 of Factories Act, 1948 for Alleged Violation of Rule 79-A(b) of Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969. Director Argues Lack of Vicarious Liability and Procedural Flaws, but Full Order Not Available.

The revision petition was filed by a director of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in manufacturing beverages, seeking to qua...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused in NDPS Case Due to Non-Commercial Quantity and Long Incarceration. The court held that the quantity of Codeine (200 grams) was less than commercial quantity (1000 grams), thus Section 37 NDPS Act not attracted, and granted bail considering the period of custody.

The applicant, Mukesh Rajaram Chaudhari, filed a bail application under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for offenc...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Passes Common Order in Petitions Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Seeking Quashing of Proceedings for Offences Under MMRD Act, KMMC Rules and IPC. Multiple Petitions Heard Together on Common Question of Law Regarding Concurrent Prosecution.

The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench delivered a common order on 6th February 2019, disposing of twelve criminal petitions filed under Section...