Madras High Court Hears Appeal Against Partition Decree in Joint Family Property Suit. Appeal Filed Under Section 96 of CPC Seeks to Set Aside Decree Granting 1/4th Share to Plaintiff in Intestate Succession Case.
6 Jul 2026...
Search Results for "Madurai Bench"
627 result(s) found
Found 627 result(s)
High Court
Madras High Court Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Reduces Compensation Due to Lack of Proof of Income and Negligence. Claimants failed to establish the income of the deceased teacher and the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, leading to reduction in award.
25 Jun 2026The case involves a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award...
- 17
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Cheating Case Due to Civil Nature of Dispute — Failure to Establish Criminal Intent Under Section 420 IPC. Allegations of Fraud in Real Estate Transaction Found to Be Purely Civil in Nature, Lacking Ingredients of Criminal Breach of Trust or Cheating.
12 Aug 2020The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed the appellants' petition to quash criminal pro...
- 387
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Direction to Register FIR in Criminal Complaint. Remedy for Non-Registration Lies Before Magistrate Under Section 156(3) CrPC, Not Under Article 226.
20 Mar 2020The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court's order directing registration of an FIR based on a complaint. The...
- 392
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case Due to Violation of Natural Justice - High Court Reversed Acquittal Without Hearing Accused
5 Jul 2019The appellant-accused and respondent-complainant were friends. The appellant borrowed Rs.30,000 from the respondent on 12.08.2001 and issued a post-da...
- 137
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Central Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is distinct from that of the manufacturer, and the benefit of the second proviso (duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.
20 Feb 2019The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...
- 166
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The Court held that the buyer's refund claim is time-barred as it was filed beyond six months from the date of purchase, and the manufacturer's protest does not extend the limitation for the buyer.
20 Feb 2019The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...
- 170
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim in Central Excise Duty Case — Limitation Period Applies Separately to Buyer. The Court held that the period of limitation of six months under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to a buyer's refund claim even if the manufacturer paid duty under protest, as the rights of manufacturer and buyer are distinct.
20 Feb 2019The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the appellant/buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise dut...
- 168
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B(1) Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) is distinct from the manufacturer's right, and the benefit of the second proviso (waiver of limitation for duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.
20 Feb 2019The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of appeals filed by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central exci...
- 235
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is distinct from that of the manufacturer, and the benefit of the second proviso (duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.
20 Feb 2019The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...
- 152
