COMMERCIAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2025
7 Aug 2026The appellant, a partnership firm, filed a commercial suit for recovery of its claim amount after attempting pre-institution mediation. The appellant ...
Search Results for "prior demand and refusal"
746 result(s) found
Found 746 result(s)
High Court
APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 54 OF 2012
12 Mar 2015The matter involved two appeals from orders arising out of Special Civil Suit No.2/2012 pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim. The...
- 19
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Upholds Labour Court Award in VSS Dispute — NMR Workers Found to Have Been Coerced into Voluntary Separation Scheme. The Court confirmed reinstatement with 70% back-wages under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, finding no perversity in the concurrent findings of fact.
12 Sep 2019The case arose from a dispute between the General Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric Project, Orissa (appellant) and 90 NMR workers (responden...
- 157
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Petition of Licensor in Eviction Dispute Under Maharashtra Rent Control Act — License Held for Residential Purpose. The court restored the eviction order of the Competent Authority, holding that the license was for residential purpose and the Competent Authority had jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
12 Nov 2024The Petitioner, Deepak S. Kavadiya, is the owner of Flat No. A/1102, Juhu Griha Swapna CHSL, JVPD, Juhu, Vile Parle West, Mumbai-400056. Respondent No...
- 2611
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Winding-Up Petition Against Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. for Lack of Service of Statutory Notice. Petition under Sections 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 fails as petitioner Aerotron Limited did not prove service of demand notice under Section 434.
18 Nov 2016The petitioner, Aerotron Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales, filed a winding-up petition under Sections 433(e) and (f...
- 69
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Petitions Challenging Demolition Notices Issued by Nagpur Improvement Trust for Alleged Unauthorized Construction. Court holds that show cause notices under Section 53 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 must be served on the owner or person in possession, and that the Trust cannot demolish without giving an opportunity of hearing.
19 Mar 2012The judgment concerns three writ petitions filed by owners of flats in Nagpur challenging demolition notices issued by the Nagpur Improvement Trust (N...
- 149
High Court
Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Former Home Minister in PMLA Case — Twin Conditions Under Section 45 Not Satisfied. Applicant held entitled to bail as ED failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing applicant guilty of money laundering under PMLA.
4 Oct 2022The applicant, Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh, a former Home Minister of Maharashtra, filed a bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, ...
- 70
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Petitions Challenging Demolition of Structures by Nashik Municipal Corporation Without Proper Notice and Hearing. Demolition Without Prior Notice Violates Principles of Natural Justice Under Section 53A of MRTP Act and Section 169 of MMC Act.
12 Sep 2024The judgment involves a group of writ petitions filed by individuals and businesses challenging the demolition of their structures by the Nashik Munic...
- 571
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Director’s Challenge to Arbitral Award in Factoring Facility Dispute — Upholds Award Despite Claims of Forged Guarantee and Procedural Lapses. Arbitral Tribunal’s Award Allowing SBI Global Factors’ Claim of Rs.43.45 Crores Jointly and Severally Against Guarantor and Principal Debtor Not Found Patent Illegality Under Section 34.
23 Dec 2025This judgment relates to a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by Sanjeev Malhotra, a former director and sh...
- 16
High Court
KAHC020022992017_1
2 Apr 2024These intra-court writ appeals arose from a common order dated 25.04.2017, by which a single judge of the Karnataka High Court had dismissed the appel...
- 21
