High Court of Karnataka Decides Batch of Writ Petitions Challenging Forest Development Tax Notification
3 Dec 2015...
Search Results for "maximum rate"
1230 result(s) found
Found 1230 result(s)
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Hears Writ Petitions Challenging Karnataka On-Demand Transportation Technology Aggregators Rules, 2016. Petitioners Allege Rules Are Ultra Vires Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Violate Fundamental Rights.
10 Nov 2016The writ petitions arose from the notification of the Karnataka On-Demand Transportation Technology Aggregators Rules, 2016, by the State Government o...
- 85
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Challenging OROP Policy Implementation for Ex-Servicemen. Periodic Revision Every Five Years Upheld as Not Arbitrary Under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
16 Mar 2022The dispute arose from a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the implementation of the One Rank One Pension (OROP) policy for ex...
- 532
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Power Generator Against Termination of PPA — Holds That Failure to Secure Fuel Supply Agreement Does Not Justify Termination Where PPA Does Not Condition Power Supply on Specific Coal Source
2 Jul 2019The case involves a dispute between M/s Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd. (appellant) and Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and others (respondents), ...
- 160
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Adjudicates Batch of Writ Petitions Concerning Forest Development Tax on Mining Leases Under Karnataka Forest Act, 1963; Constitutional Validity of Section 98A and Notification Examined. The petitioners contended that the notification dated 16.08.2008 and demand of forest development tax from holders of mining leases in forest areas were repugnant to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and ultra vires the State's legislative competence.
3 Dec 2015A batch of writ petitions was filed before the High Court of Karnataka under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by various entities inc...
- 59
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Under Section 224 IPC for Late Return After Parole While Upholding Curtailment Notice. Show-Cause Notice for Curtailment of Remission Is Preliminary and Not Liable to Be Quashed; Prosecution Under Section 224 IPC Requires Mens Rea and Is Not Justified When Convict Returns Within Maximum Permissible Parole Period.
14 Sep 2017The petitioner, a convict serving a seven-year sentence for an offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was lodged at ...
- 42
High Court
Bombay High Court Reserves Judgment in Letters Patent Appeal Filed by Terminated Employees Against Single Judge's Order. Model Standing Orders Dispute: Whether Rule 32 Excludes Clause 4A Protection for Probationers Who Were Initially Trainees.
27 Apr 2026This Letters Patent Appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, which had upheld the termination of...
- 11
Supreme Court
Supreme Court hears cross appeals against National Commission's compensation order in medical negligence death case — all parties challenge quantum and liability apportionment. The core legal issue concerns the adequacy of income proof, necessity of deductions for living expenses and taxes, and the reliance on foreign expert testimony for determining pecuniary loss.
1 Aug 2026The Supreme Court heard a batch of civil appeals arising from the judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redress...
- 78
High Court
Madras High Court Partially Sets Aside Arbitral Award in Port Contract Dispute — Liquidated Damages Recovery Upheld for 768-Day Delay. The court held that extension of time does not bar recovery of liquidated damages under Section 55 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the contractor must prove no loss was caused.
9 Feb 2026The petitioner, Chennai Port Trust, issued a tender for restoration of a damaged revetment structure after cyclones. The respondent, a contractor, was...
- 41
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Challenging Discriminatory Pension Revision for Teachers Retired Between 1996-2005. State Government's Resolution dated 27-02-2009 held arbitrary and violative of Article 14 for denying revised pension benefits to teachers who retired during the period 01-01-1996 to 31-12-2005.
2 Feb 2024The petitioners, an association of superannuated teachers governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, challenged the State Gover...
- 72
