Search Results for "absolute privilege"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Bombay High Court at Goa Dismisses Review Petition in Partition Suit Impleadment...
Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witn...

Search Results for "absolute privilege"

306 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 306 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Developer's Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Relief in Redevelopment Dispute. Section 37(2)(b) Appeal Fails as No Prima Facie Case for Injunction Established Due to Unclear Terms and Unregistered Supplemental Agreement.

4 Mar 2025

The Petitioner, Heritage Lifestyles & Developers Pvt. Ltd., a developer, filed an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ac...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Lays Down Pan-India Guidelines Against Demolition of Properties of Accused Without Due Process. Executive Cannot Use Demolition as Punishment for Crime; Right to Shelter Protected Under Article 21.

1 Oct 2024

This batch of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India raised a grievance that residential and commercial properties of persons ac...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeals of Owners in TDR Dispute — Upholds Godrej & Boyce I and Holds 2016 Amendment Prospective. The Court ruled that the right to 100% TDR for constructing amenities vests upon surrender and development, and the 2016 amendment to Regulation 34 of DCR, 1991 cannot operate retrospectively to defeat that right.

20 Sep 2024

The Supreme Court of India heard a batch of civil appeals arising from three judgments of the Bombay High Court concerning the entitlement of owners/l...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Trial Court Order Allowing Prosecution to Refresh Witness Memory Using Section 161 CrPC Statement During Examination-in-Chief. Use of Section 161 Statement for Refreshing Memory Violates Section 162 CrPC and Section 159 Evidence Act.

28 Aug 2024

The petitioner, Meena Tuyekar, the accused in a corruption case, challenged an order dated 18.1.2024 passed by the trial court allowing the Public Pro...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Non-Application of Mind — Detenu in Custody Without Imminent Release Possibility. Preventive Detention Order Set Aside as Detaining Authority Failed to Consider Detenu's Judicial Custody and Imminent Bail Possibility Under Section 3(2) of MPDA Act.

6 Jul 2018

The petitioner, Ankush Vaman Pawar, a resident of Pune, was detained at Yerawada Central Prison pursuant to an order dated 12 March 2018 passed by the...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Non-Application of Mind — Detaining Authority Relied on Extraneous Material Including Inapplicable Sections. Preventive Detention Order Set Aside as Subjective Satisfaction Vitiated by Reliance on Irrelevant Documents Under Section 3(2) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981.

29 Jun 2018

The petitioner, Pawan Tukaram Kudale, challenged a detention order dated 29 January 2018 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, under Sectio...

High Court

Karnataka High Court Allows Petitions of APMC Members Challenging Government Circular on Term of Committee — Statutory Rule Under Rule 14(4) of KAPM(R&D) Rules, 1968 Prevails. The court held that the term of the committee continues until the first meeting of the newly constituted committee, and a government circular cannot override the statutory rule.

13 Jun 2016

The case involved a batch of writ petitions filed by members of the Harihar Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) challenging a government c...

High Court

Karnataka High Court Upholds Validity of APMC Bye-Laws Requiring Traders to Obtain Licenses and Pay Market Fees — Held that Bye-Laws Framed Under Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 Are Statutory and Binding. Writ petitions challenging bye-laws dismissed as not maintainable without challenging the parent Act.

13 Jun 2016

The petitioners, who are members of the Harihar Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, filed writ petitions challenging the validity of certain bye...

High Court

Karnataka High Court Allows Petitions Challenging Appointment of Administrator for APMC Committee — Appointment of Administrator Without Prior Notice and Without Considering Representation Violates Principles of Natural Justice. The court held that the power under Section 121 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 must be exercised in accordance with natural justice, and failure to issue show cause notice renders the appointment invalid.

13 Jun 2016

The petitioners, who were the President, Vice President, and members of the Harihar Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC), challenged the ap...

High Court

Karnataka High Court Allows Petitions of APMC Committee Members Challenging Government Circular Curtailing Term. Section 7(2) of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 mandates continuation of committee until newly elected committee assumes office, overriding executive instructions.

13 Jun 2016

The petitioners, members of the Harihar Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, challenged a Government Circular dated 22-04-2016 that purported to ...

26 27 28 29 30

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)