Search Results for "Section 138 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code"

38 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 38 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeal in Partition Suit, Upholds Trial Court's Decree for Partition and Separate Possession. The court held that the suit for partition was not barred by limitation as the plaintiff's possession was not adverse and the defendants failed to prove ouster.

The case pertains to a Regular First Appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge,...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Fishermen Cooperative's Petition Against Demolition of Fishermen Huts in Coastal Zone. Court Holds That Traditional Fishing Communities Have Customary Rights to Occupy Foreshore Land for Livelihood, Subject to Environmental Clearances Under CRZ Notification, 2011.

The petitioner, Mariyayi Macchimaar Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, a cooperative society of traditional fishermen, filed a writ petition challenging the pr...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Quashes FIR in Cheque Dishonour Case Due to Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction. The court held that the offence under Section 138 NI Act is committed at the place of dishonour and service of notice, which was Delhi, not Bangalore.

The petitioners, Sri Devidas Garg, Smt. Amita Garg, and Sri Santhosh Kumar Garg, filed two criminal petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Crimina...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Remand Order in Right of Way Dispute Under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Court upholds Additional Collector's order remitting matter for fresh enquiry as Tahsildar's order was passed without proper notice and opportunity of hearing.

The petitioners, Nago Hari Zangte and others, filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner whi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Time Limit for Availing Input Tax Credit Under Section 16(4) of CGST Act. The court held that the time limit is mandatory and not directory, and retrospective amendments are valid.

The Bombay High Court, in a batch of writ petitions, addressed the constitutional validity and interpretation of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods an...