Search Results for "section 185"

847 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 847 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Full Bench adjudicates the limitation period for recovery of electricity charges under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Conflicting Division Bench decisions on whether dues beyond two years can be recovered when not continuously shown as arrears are reconciled.

The case originated from a writ petition challenging an order of the Electricity Ombudsman regarding recovery of electricity dues for a period beyond ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Criminal Petition Seeking Redaction of Deposition in POCSO Case. Statement Under Section 164 CrPC Held Not Substantive Evidence; Reference by Witness in Deposition to Prior Statement Permissible for Contradiction/Corroboration Only.

The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was filed by the accused in a POCSO case seeking redaction of a portion of the...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Hears Writ Petition Under Article 227 Against Revisional Order Upholding Eviction Under Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Licensee Company Challenges Jurisdiction, Arguing Non-Applicability of Act Due to Paid-Up Capital Exceeding Rs. 1 Crore Under Section 3(1)(b).

Background: The matter involves a dispute between licensors (owners of a flat in Galaxy Apartments, Bandra) and a licensee company (petitioner no. 1) ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Interception Orders in CBI Corruption Case for Lack of Reasons and Public Emergency. Orders under Section 5(2) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 set aside as they merely recited statutory language without recording cogent reasons demonstrating public safety or public emergency.

The petitioner, Shyamalendu Kumar Das, a Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), challenged two orders dated 9 March 2018 and 17 March 2018 passed...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Petitioners in Food Adulteration Case — No Offence Made Out Under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Sale of 'Mint' and 'Saunf' Products Not Prohibited Under Section 26(2)(i) of FSS Act, 2006 as They Are Not 'Food' as Defined.

The petitioners, Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia and Vijay Banarasi Chaurasia, were engaged in the business of selling 'Mint' and 'Saunf' products. On 12th J...