Search Results for "Section 33A"

108 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 108 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petitions Challenging Compensation Determination for Land and Structures Used for Road Construction. MCGM directed to acquire land under Section 296 of MMC Act and pay compensation in accordance with law.

The petitioners in two writ petitions challenged the determination of compensation by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) for their lan...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Tenants' Petition in Land Possession Dispute Under Section 33B of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Landlords' Certificate of Exemption Under Section 88C Upheld, Personal Cultivation Need Established.

The case involves a dispute between the petitioners, who are the heirs of the original tenant Kondiba Dnyanu Dongale, and the respondents, who are the...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Pollution Control Board's Consent Order for Home Products Industry — Conditions Imposed by Board Held Reasonable and Not Arbitrary.

The petitioners, residents of Hiriyur Town, filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the consent order...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition by Air India Challenging Rejection of Approval Application Under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act — Withdrawal of Earlier Application and Reinstatement of Workman Bars Fresh Application for Approval of Dismissal Based on Same Misconduct.

The case involves a challenge by Air India Ltd. (the petitioner) against an order of the Presiding Officer of the National Industrial Tribunal at Mumb...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal by Workers Challenging Industrial Court Order Refusing Stay of Union Election. Held that the Industrial Court's order was not perverse and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error, and the writ court's supervisory jurisdiction did not warrant interference.

The case involves a Letters Patent Appeal filed by 25 workers (appellants) against an order of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing thei...