Search Results for "concurrent hearing"

1980 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1980 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Reduces Sentence of Bus Driver for Breaking Railway Crossing Gate Under Section 160(2) of Railways Act, 1989. Conviction Upheld but Sentence Reduced to Period Already Undergone Due to Nature of Offence and Passage of Time.

The appellant, Nagaraj, was a driver employed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. On 3 August 2006, while driving a bus, he hit a railw...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Temple Dispute: Shri Ram Mandir Held to be Public Temple, Pujari Not Mahant. State's Management of Temple Properties Upheld as Deity is the True Owner.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Shri Ram Mandir, Indore, represented by its alleged manager Ram Das, against the State of Madhya Prade...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Wakf Property Dispute — Suit Barred by Limitation Under Section 6 of Wakf Act, 1954. One-Year Limitation Period for Challenging Wakf Publication Cannot Be Extended by Notice Requirement Under Section 56.

The appellant, Syed Zainul Abedeen, filed a suit under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, seeking a declaration that the property Mandarja Madnumber 14 ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Tenant's Writ Petition Challenging Eviction Decree for Bona Fide Need of Landlord's Son. Eviction upheld under Section 16(1)(g) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 as landlord's son required the suit premises for his independent business.

The petitioner, M/s. Khandelwal Steel & Pipe Distributors, a partnership firm, was a tenant in a three-storied house property owned by the respondents...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit, Upholds Concurrent Findings of Possession and Title. Court holds that findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 CPC unless perverse or based on no evidence.

The case involves a property dispute between the appellants (original defendants) and respondents (original plaintiffs) over agricultural land. The pl...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court at Goa Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Disturbed. Court holds that no substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC when findings are based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse.

The case involves a second appeal filed by the original defendants (appellants) against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, North Goa, Pana...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Possession Suit, Upholds Concurrent Findings for Specific Performance. Concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be interfered with in second appeal as no substantial question of law arose.

The appellants, as plaintiffs, instituted Special Civil Suit No.72 of 2014 seeking possession of suit lands. They claimed that vide two agreements dat...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Against Mamlatdar's Order in Land Dispute Under Goa Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966. Concurrent findings of possession and title by Mamlatdar and Additional District Magistrate upheld as no perversity or error of law found.

The judgment pertains to two writ petitions filed by the original defendants in a suit/application under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act,...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Mortgage Redemption Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Court holds that the appellant failed to prove the mortgage and refusal to redeem, and no substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC.

The appellant, Gulabrao Vishwas Desai, filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court against the judgment and order dated 3rd August 1988 passed ...