Search Results for "Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961"

418 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 418 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Declaration of Withdrawal from Land Acquisition for Gavipuram Extension Layout. Court Holds That Section 48(1) Notification Not Gazetted Is Ineffective and Acquisition Completed in 1987 Bars Withdrawal.

The petitioners, legal representatives of original grantees of 2 acres and 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 26 of Nagadevanahalli Village, Bangalore, soug...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Quashes FIR in Cheque Dishonour Case Due to Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction. The court held that the offence under Section 138 NI Act is committed at the place of dishonour and service of notice, which was Delhi, not Bangalore.

The petitioners, Sri Devidas Garg, Smt. Amita Garg, and Sri Santhosh Kumar Garg, filed two criminal petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Crimina...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Arbitral Tribunal's Interlocutory Order as Not Maintainable Under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Order Rejecting Permission to File Fresh Valuation Report Is Not an Interim Award and Cannot Be Challenged Under Section 34.

The dispute arises from a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) dated 22.12.2003 between Dilip Timblo (appellant) and Prashant Timblo (respondent). The appel...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Banks to Deny Legal Representation in Wilful Defaulter Proceedings. In-House Committees of Banks Are Not Tribunals Under Section 30 of Advocates Act, 1961, and Right to Lawyer Is Not Part of Natural Justice.

The Supreme Court considered appeals against the Delhi High Court judgment which held that a borrower is entitled to be represented by a lawyer before...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Dismissal of Bus Conductor in MSRTC Misappropriation Case. Labour Court's refusal to interfere with punishment of dismissal for collecting Rs.14/- but issuing Rs.5/- ticket and having cash excess of Rs.11/- is confirmed as not perverse.

The petitioner, Rohidas Premchand Bhagat, was employed as a bus conductor with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) since 1 Novemb...