Search Results for "section 33(4)"

523 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 523 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appellants' Second Appeal in Property Dispute, Upholding Concurrent Findings That Plaintiffs Failed to Prove Title and Possession. Suit for Possession and Mesne Profits Dismissed as Plaintiffs Did Not Discharge Burden of Proof Under Section 100 CPC.

The case involves two second appeals arising from a property dispute between the legal representatives of Balaji Ramaiya Manthanwar (appellants) and G...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay Considers Second Appeals in RERA Delayed Possession Matter. Builder Challenges Appellate Tribunal's Direction to Pay Interest at 10.05% p.a. from February 2014.

These Second Appeals were filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by Runwal Constructions, a registered partnership firm, challenging the ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Dispute — Concurrent Findings of Fact Upheld. Suit for declaration of ownership and injunction dismissed as plaintiffs failed to prove title and possession; no substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.

The case involves a second appeal filed by the original defendants (appellants) against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court which had...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Dispute Between Brothers — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Suit for Possession and Injunction Dismissed as Plaintiff Failed to Prove Title and Encroachment.

The plaintiff, Bhagwatrao Randive, filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against his brother, Panditrao Randive, alleging encroachment ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Clarifies Legal Insanity Defence Under Section 84 IPC and Burden of Proof Under Section 105 Evidence Act. The court held that insanity must be legal, not medical, to exempt from criminal liability, with the accused bearing the burden of proof on a preponderance of probabilities standard.

The judgment involved an appeal where the appellant raised the plea of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, seeking reversal of a...