Search Results for "special limitation"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Enhances Child Maintenance and Grants Interim Medical Maintenance ...
Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Eschew Proof Affidavit in Probate Proceedings. ...

Search Results for "special limitation"

3477 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 3477 result(s)

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Specific Performance Suit — No Error Apparent on Face of Record. Court upholds its earlier judgment reversing High Court's partial decree for specific performance, holding that the petitioner failed to prove readiness and willingness and that the suit was barred by limitation.

18 Nov 2024

The petitioner, M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., filed a review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution read with Order XLVII Rule 1 o...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses SLP Against High Court's Refusal to Condon 5659-Day Delay in Land Acquisition Appeal — Delay Not Explained with Sufficient Cause, Limitation Act Sections 3 and 5 Balanced.

16 Apr 2024

The case arises from the acquisition of land in Gandluru village, Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh, in 1989 for the Telugu Ganga Project. Dissatisfied ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Arbitration Matter — No Error Apparent on Face of Record in Limitation Finding. Court holds that review jurisdiction under Section 114 CPC and Order 47 Rule 1 is limited to errors apparent on record, not re-appreciation of evidence.

4 Apr 2013

The review petition was filed by Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (the original respondent no.1 in Arbitration Appeal No. 6 of 2007) seeking review of ...

High Court

High Court of Bombay Allows Writ Petition, Sets Aside Order Granting Leave to Defend in Eviction Proceeding Under Maharashtra Rent Control Act; Restores Original Eviction Order. The Court holds that the statutory limitation of 30 days under Section 43(4)(a) for a licensee to seek leave to defend is inflexible and cannot be extended under the Limitation Act, 1963, nor does a remand order revive the period.

29 Mar 2005

The case involved a dispute between a landlord and a licensee concerning possession of a flat in Pune. The petitioner, a proprietary concern, owned Fl...

Tribunals

NCLAT Chennai Adjudicates on Condonation of Delay in Company Appeal, Considering Supreme Court's COVID-19 Limitation Extension. The Court examined whether the appeal filed on 28.05.2021 against the 31.01.2020 order approving resolution plan was within time in light of Section 61 IBC and the Supreme Court's orders excluding limitation period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022.

1 Jan 1970

The case arose from an appeal against the National Company Law Tribunal order dated 31.01.2020 approving a resolution plan for Vaksh Steels Pvt. Ltd. ...

Tribunals

NCLAT Clarifies Certified Copy Requirement for Filing Appeal Under Section 61 of IBC, 2016. The court held that an uncertified copy can be filed, but limitation runs from receipt of certified copy.

30 Nov -0001

This judgment arises from a reference made to a single member bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai due to a dissent...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Interim Injunction Application in Specific Performance Suit — Plaintiff Fails to Establish Possession and Prima Facie Case. Balance of convenience favors defendant as property stands in defendant's name and no irreparable loss shown.

30 Nov -0001

The present matter is an interim application in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff, S...

Supreme Court

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.

1 Jan 2020

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

High Court

KAHC020110942015_1

13 Dec 2023

...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Petitions by Offshore Drilling Companies Challenging Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 — Notices Quashed for Being Time-Barred and Lacking Proper Sanction. Reassessment notices for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 were issued beyond the four-year time limit under Section 149 without any allegation of failure to disclose material facts, and the sanction under Section 151 was granted without proper application of mind.

4 Aug 2023

The petitioners, Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited, Shelf Drilling J.T. Angel Limited, and Shelf Drilling Trident XII Limited, are companies incorp...

15 16 17 18 19

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)