Search Results for "impleadment"

909 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 909 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Impleadment Application in Partition Suit Under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Petitioners Claiming to be Coparceners Held Necessary Parties for Effective Adjudication.

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panhala, Kolhapur, rejecting their application under ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Dismisses State Appeal in Increment Benefit Case — Employees Entitled to Annual Increment Earned During Service Even if Retirement Falls on Last Day of Month. Rule 38 of Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 interpreted to grant increment for full year of service rendered.

The present Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the State of Gujarat and its officers (appellants) challenging an oral order dated 10.11.2023 passed by...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition of Tenants Challenging Demolition of Dilapidated Building. Court upholds eviction and demolition orders based on structural safety reports and compliance with statutory procedures under Section 354 of MMC Act, 1888 and Section 22 of MHADA Act, 1976.

The petitioners, residents of Building No. 12 in Mathuradas Colony, Kalina, Mumbai, filed a writ petition challenging the demolition order issued by t...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Amendment of Plaint in Civil Suit for Permanent Injunction to Include Alternative Relief of Specific Performance. Pre-trial amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC should be liberally allowed if no prejudice is caused to the opposite party.

The petitioner, Shri Bhramappa S/o Parappa Savadi, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Appeal for Impleadment in Winding Up Proceedings Due to Lack of Shareholding and Delay. Appellant, who sold his shares and ceased to be a shareholder, cannot seek impleadment in company winding up proceedings under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956.

The appellant, Dr. Kirtivan D. Kotian, along with his family members, originally held over 95% shares of M/s S. Manikya Plastichem Private Limited and...