Search Results for "Constructive possession"

409 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 409 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Land Acquisition for Road Widening Under Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955. Petitioners Failed to Show Statutory Violation or Arbitrariness in Acquisition Process.

The judgment concerns three writ petitions filed by landowners challenging the acquisition of their land for widening of the Aurangabad-Jalna road und...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Admiralty Suits as Time-Barred Under Limitation Act. Claims for Loss of Vessel and Cargo Filed Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period from Date of Vessel's Sinking.

The judgment concerns two admiralty suits filed in the Bombay High Court. Admiralty Suit No.3 of 2011 was filed by the time charterer of the vessel 'N...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Partly Allows Accused Appeals in MCOC Extortion Case Due to Defective Charge and Excessive Sentence. Conviction under Sections 364, 386 read with 120B IPC and Section 3(1)(ii) MCOC Act upheld; Arms Act and Section 3(4) MCOC convictions set aside and sentence reduced.

The case arose from an extortion incident in Mumbai where a travel business owner was abducted and forced to pay a ransom of Rs.5 lakh. Accused person...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petition in Execution Proceedings - Limited Inquiry Under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC. Executing Court Not Required to Conduct Full-Fledged Trial When Obstruction is Ex Facie Baseless; Summary Rejection Permissible.

The Bombay High Court addressed the scope of inquiry to be conducted by an Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 190...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging IPAB Order Refusing Additional Evidence in Trademark Opposition. Court holds that the IPAB's refusal to allow additional documents was not perverse or arbitrary, and the petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for not producing them earlier.

The petitioners, M/s. Agar Distributors (India) and Shri Siraj Amirali Soorani, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16 July 2010 passed b...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

WRIT PETITION NO. 10533 OF 2023

...