Search Results for "quash complaints"

1035 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1035 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Proceedings Against Financier in Motor Vehicle Tax Default Case — Hypothecatee Not Liable for Tax Default Under Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. Financier cannot be prosecuted for tax default by registered owner as hypothecation does not confer ownership.

The petitioner, M/s. Shriram Investments Ltd. (now amalgamated with Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.), was a financier for a commercial vehicle bear...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Refusal to Quash FIR in Dowry Harassment Case. Allegations of Cruelty and Dowry Demand Under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Require Trial.

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging the High Court's refusal to quash criminal proceedings arising from FIR No.82 of 2022 registered und...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Decides Appeal Regarding Retrospective Reassessment of Property Tax Under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Single Judge had Quashed Orders and Demands Reassessing Rateable Value from 1-4-2000.

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai issued special notices in 2001 and 2002 reassessing the rateable value of Dalamal Tower Premises Co-operat...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Engineering College to Participate in CAP Admissions Despite AICTE’s Reduction of Intake Capacity. The Court Held That the College’s Non-Listing on AICTE Website Should Not Affect Admission Process, Subject to Final Outcome.

The Petitioner, Saraswati Education Society’s Saraswati College of Engineering, an institution established in 1997 and offering undergraduate engine...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Quashes Compulsory Retirement Order of IRS Officer Due to Bias and Malice. Compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules, 1922, set aside as it was punitive, violated natural justice due to biased committee members, and disregarded clean service record.

The dispute involved an Indian Revenue Service officer challenging his compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, ordered three ...