Search Results for "unexplained delay"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Claimant in Motor Accident Case — Functional Di...
Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Forgery Case Due to Long Pendency and No Crim...
Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Concurrent Findi...
High Court of Bombay at Bombay Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Acc...

Search Results for "unexplained delay"

602 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 602 result(s)

High Court

High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Order Condoning Delay in Land Revenue Appeal Due to Lack of Reasons and Insufficient Cause. Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 as Quasi-Judicial Authority Violated Natural Justice by Failing to Record Reasons for Condoning 13-Year Delay Under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963.

13 Mar 2026

The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by Petitioner, a public listed company, challenging an order dated 8th April 2024 passed by the Additiona...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses State's Delay Condonation Applications in Land Acquisition Appeals Due to Unexplained Delay of Over 5 Years. The court held that the State cannot claim benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 without sufficient cause, and the delay of 5 years and 5 months was not satisfactorily explained.

4 Jan 2018

The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector and Executive Engineer, filed multiple Civil Applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963,...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Income Tax Case — HDPE Powder Stock Not Unexplained Investment Under Section 69. Assessee's books of accounts showing purchases and closing stock were accepted, and nature and source of investment were duly explained.

17 Jan 2005

The appeal was filed by the assessee, Babulal C. Borana, a dealer in HDPE plastic powder, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the d...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Income Tax Case — HDPE Powder Found During Search Held Part of Recorded Stock, Not Unexplained Investment Under Section 69. Goods recorded in books of accounts as purchases and closing stock cannot be treated as unexplained investment under Section 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

17 Jan 2005

The appellant-assessee, Babulal C. Borana, a dealer in HDPE plastic powder, filed an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the...

High Court

Bombay High Court Declares Continued Detention Illegal Due to Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation Under COFEPOSA Act. Central Government's failure to consider detenu's representation within reasonable time violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution and renders continued detention illegal under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974.

31 Aug 2012

The petitioner, brother of the detenu Saiyed Jamaluddin Naeemuddin, filed a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under COFEPOSA for Non-Application of Mind and Non-Supply of Vital Documents. Detenu's Right to Make Effective Representation Under Article 22(5) of the Constitution Violated by Failure to Furnish Statements of Co-Accused and Retraction Letters.

17 Jul 2015

The petitioner, Deepak Bapu Keluskar, challenged a detention order dated 29th September 2014 passed by the detaining authority under Section 3(1) of t...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Petition Challenging Preventive Detention Under COFEPOSA Act Due to Unexplained Delay in Deciding Representation. Violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India renders detention order invalid.

22 Dec 2014

The petitioner, father of the detenu Chirag D. Shah, filed a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a preven...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Forfeiture Case Under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. The court upheld the forfeiture of a theatre property as the appellants failed to prove legitimate sources of funds and were associates of a person detained under COFEPOSA, with no entitlement to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture under Section 9.

22 Mar 2023

The appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka upholding an order forfeiting M/s. Platinum Theatre under the Smugglers and Foreign Ex...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Convictions and Reverses Acquittals in Political Rivalry Murder Case — Witness Testimony and Recoveries Sufficient to Sustain Convictions Under Sections 302, 148, 460 IPC and Section 3 Explosives Substances Act.

22 Apr 2022

The case arises from a political rivalry between CPI(M) and NDF members. On 17.07.2002, an altercation occurred between the deceased (CPI(M)) and A-3 ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Non-Application of Mind — Detenu's Bail in Criminal Cases Not Considered. The court held that failure to consider the detenu's bail status vitiates the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act.

18 Jan 2017

The petitioner, Viki Baban Galte, challenged a preventive detention order dated 26 April 2016 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune, under Sectio...

1 2 3 4 5

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