Search Results for "directory not mandatory"

676 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 676 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay at Goa Allows Writ Petition Challenging Revision Order — Revisional Court Erred in Entertaining Revision Under Section 438 BNSS Against Order Under Section 164 BNSS Without Notice. Order Under Section 164 BNSS Is Summary and Not Subject to Revision; Natural Justice Violated.

The petitioner, Shri Noberto Paulo Sebastiao Fernandes, through his constituted attorney, filed a criminal writ petition before the High Court of Bomb...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Holds Section 13(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Directory — District Forum Can Extend Time for Filing Reply Beyond 45 Days in Exceptional Circumstances. The 30-day period for filing reply commences from receipt of notice by the opposite party.

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench addressed two questions referred regarding Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The first quest...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Ruling That Time Limit Under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act is Directory. The provision requiring District Magistrate to pass possession order within 30 days (extendable to 60 days) is directory, as non-compliance does not invalidate proceedings or prejudice the borrower.

The appeal arose from a judgment of the Kerala High Court which held that the time limit under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Disqualification of Councillor Under Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986. Failure to Comply with Whip Issued by Group Leader Constitutes Defection Under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act.

The petitioner, Avinash Mardikar, was elected as a councillor of the Amravati Municipal Corporation and appointed as group leader of a coalition (Agha...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Stay in No Confidence Motion Case — No Fresh Motion Barred Under Section 35(3-A) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 as First Motion Was Not Moved or Carried.

The appellant, Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale, was elected Sarpanch of Theur village panchayat in 2010. On 5 October 2011, a no confidence motion was init...