Search Results for "Section 281"

376 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 376 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeals by State and Employee in Service Rule Relaxation Dispute. High Court's Quashing of Government Order Granting Promotion Set Aside as Relaxation Was Validly Granted.

The Supreme Court heard two sets of appeals arising from a judgment of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 996 of 2015 and an order dismissing Re...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Dismisses Defendants' Second Appeal in Property Possession Suit Based on Oral Gift (Hiba) Under Muslim Personal Law. Concurrent Findings of Fact Regarding Valid Oral Gift and Father's Admission in Written Statement Upheld; No Substantial Question of Law Arises.

The dispute centered on ownership and possession of a property within a family, where the plaintiff, a son, claimed that his father had made an oral g...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Workman's Petition in Industrial Dispute — Termination Quashed for Lack of Valid Domestic Inquiry. Reinstatement with 50% Backwages Granted as Employer Failed to Prove Misconduct Under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The petitioner, Anwarbhashasab S/o Mardansab Saragi, was employed as a driver with the North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NEKRTC). He wa...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal by Liquidator in Recovery Suit Against Bank for Wrongful Payment After Liquidation — Bank Liable to Pay Fixed Deposit Amount to Liquidator Despite Payment to Company Director After Winding Up.

The plaintiff, Gowribidanur Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., a co-operative society under liquidation, filed a suit for recovery of money against India...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Seeking Enforcement of Consent Terms Against Non-Signatory Defendant in Debenture Dispute. Interpretation of Consent Decree Held That Clause 11(a) Obligation to Pay Was Only on Defendant No.5, Not Defendant No.6, Who Was Not a Party to the Consent Terms.

The case involves two appeals filed by the original Defendant No.5 (Dewanchand Ramsaran Trading Pvt. Ltd. and others) against a common order of the le...