Search Results for "Time Bound Promotion Scheme"

531 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 531 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court Condemns Demolition by Municipal Corporation Under Guise of DCPR 2034 Redevelopment Scheme. Appeal from Order Dismisses Demolition as High-handed and Illegal Under Regulation 33(9) of Development Control and Promotion Regulation 2034.

The matter pertains to an appeal from order filed by M/s. Mehta & Co., a partnership firm through its partner Mr. Adarsh Varma, as original plaintiff,...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Pronounces Order on Constitutional Challenge to Karnataka On-demand Transportation Technology Aggregators Rules, 2016. Petitioners Assert Rules Ultra Vires Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Violative of Freedom of Trade and Commerce Under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 301 of the Constitution.

The Karnataka High Court considered a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Karnataka On-demand Transportation Techno...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Revisional Order Allowing Liquor Licence in Village Where Women's Gramsabha Resolution Banned Liquor — Held That Gramsabha Resolution Under Section 138 of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Must Be Given Due Weight and Cannot Be Ignored by Revisional Authority.

The petitioners, residents of Village Chas (kaman), Taluka Khed, Dist. Pune, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of I...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Hears Public Interest Litigation Concerning Recruitment and Selection Process. Petition Challenges Appointments Made by State Authorities Alleging Irregularities in Selection.

The judgment text provided is incomplete, containing only the case heading, date, court, judges, advocates, and a list of parties. The matter is a wri...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses IPS Officer's Challenge to Rejection of Voluntary Retirement. Central Government's Decision to Reject Voluntary Retirement Upheld as Disciplinary Proceedings Were Contemplated and Petitioner Was Not Clear from Vigilance Angle.

The petitioner, a 1997 batch IPS officer of Maharashtra Cadre, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 7th ...