Search Results for "replacement notice"

387 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 387 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Challenging MPID Act Application in NSEL Scam Case — Held That MPID Act Applies to NSEL as a Financial Establishment and That Default in Repayment of Deposits Attracts Offences Under the Act.

The judgment arises from multiple criminal appeals and interim applications filed by various parties, including directors, brokers, and financial inst...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Section 11 Petition for Appointment of Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration Dispute. Seat of Arbitration Held to be Dubai, UAE, Not India, Based on Express Terms of Distributorship Agreement.

The present petition was filed under Section 11(6)(a) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Considers Whether Registrar NCLT Can Scrutinize Maintainability of Section 95 IBC Petition at Filing Stage. Appeal Challenges Single Judge's Order Holding E-Filing of Insolvency Petition Against Partnership Firm Void and Non-Est.

The appeal arose from a writ petition filed by M/s Manyata Reallty, a partnership firm, challenging the e-filing of a petition under Section 95 of the...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay Determines Applicability of Maharashtra Fee Regulation Act to Autonomous Professional Colleges. The Court Examined Whether Autonomous Status Under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 Exempts Institutions from Fee Oversight by the Fees Regulating Authority.

The judgment addressed a common question of law arising from three writ petitions filed by autonomous educational institutions: K.J. Somaiya College o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Adjudicates Writ Petitions Challenging Mandatory Pre-Deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. The court examined whether the mandatory deposit requirement violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court of Karnataka heard a batch of writ petitions filed by several assessees, including Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Prestige Garde...