Search Results for "notice under Section 25(3)"

354 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 354 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Complaints for Dishonour of Cheques Due to Lack of Proper Service of Demand Notice Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Service of notice by speed post or courier must be proved by cogent evidence; mere dispatch is insufficient.

The Bombay High Court disposed of a batch of petitions and applications under Section 482 CrPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeals in SAFEMA Forfeiture Case — Notice to Convict Not Mandatory When Property Held by Relatives. The Court held that proceedings against relatives under Section 6 of SAFEMA are independent and do not require prior notice to the convict.

The Supreme Court of India heard appeals against a Madras High Court judgment that had set aside forfeiture orders under the Smugglers and Foreign Exc...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeals in Property Sale Dispute, Upholds Concurrent Findings of Valid Sale and Possession. Agreement for Sale and Sale Deed for Agricultural Land Upheld as Self-Acquired Property Not Subject to Coparcenary Rights.

The case involves two second appeals arising from a property dispute. The appellants, who are the wife, daughters, and son of Ramesh Krushnarao Deshmu...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows PIL Seeking Directions to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for Compliance with Procedural Rules. Court Holds That Insistence on Personal Appearance of Claimants at Filing Is Not Mandatory Under Rule 254(2) of Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

This Public Interest Litigation was filed by Anil Prabhakar Tadkalkar, a practicing advocate, raising several issues concerning the disposal of claim ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows FERA Appeal: Tribunal Erred in Affirming Penalty for Alleged Contravention of Section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973 — Remittances Protected Under Remittances in Foreign Exchange (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991 and Scheme of 1991.

The appellants, four individuals, received US$ 25,000 each in their savings bank accounts with Bank of Baroda on or about 12 October 1991, totaling US...