Search Results for "time-barred application"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Bombay High Court at Goa Dismisses Review Petition in Partition Suit Impleadment...
Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witn...

Search Results for "time-barred application"

34 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 34 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Tenant's Revision in Rent Control Eviction Case — Irregular Deposit of Rent Under Section 15(3) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Does Not Bar Eviction. Tenant's failure to deposit rent regularly despite court order justified decree for possession.

27 Jun 2024

The case involves a dispute between the landlord (respondent) and the tenant (applicant) over eviction from a flat in Mumbai. The landlord filed a sui...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeals Against High Court's Review Order in Mutation Dispute — Review Power Cannot Be Used to Rehear Merits After Dismissal of SLP. The High Court's review order was set aside as it sought to re-examine the merits after the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP against the original judgment, and the contempt petition was barred by limitation.

1 Jan 2024

The present appeals arise from a long-standing property dispute concerning land known as 'Asman Jahi Paigah' in Raidurg village. The original suit for...

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 2019

The 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 ...

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 2019

The 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 ...

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 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the appellant/buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise dut...

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 2019

The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of appeals filed by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central exci...

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 2019

The 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 ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging School Tribunal's Refusal to Condone Delay in Appeal Against Termination. Petitioner's failure to pursue remedies diligently and absence of sufficient cause for delay of over three years led to dismissal.

1 Oct 2015

The petitioner, Popat Sitaram Godge, was terminated from service on 22.05.1994 by the respondent educational institution. He initially filed a civil s...

High Court

Bombay High Court Upholds Reinstatement of Employee in Education Service Dispute — Illegal Termination Violates M.E.P.S. Rules. Employee's discontinuation without inquiry and notice held illegal; employer directed to reinstate with back wages and continuity.

19 Mar 2012

The case involves an appeal by an educational institution and its headmaster against a common judgment of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. The...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Industrial Court Order on Permanency and Back Wages in Newspaper Industry Dispute. Industrial Court's finding that previous litigation had determined entitlement to permanency and back wages was upheld, but the High Court held that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to grant permanency under the MRTU Act.

12 Mar 2010

The judgment involves multiple writ petitions filed by employees (Sanjay Shalikram Ingle and others) against M/s. Lokmat Newspapers Private Ltd., chal...

1 2 3 4

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)