Search Results for "ordinance amendment"

500 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 500 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Regulatory Appeal on Trial Forum under Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. Procedural Amendment to Section 26 by the 2002 Amendment Act Held Retrospective, and All Pending Trials for Pre-2002 Offences Must Proceed Before Special Court as per the 2014 Amendment.

The Supreme Court addressed a batch of appeals and writ petitions concerning the correct forum for trial of offences under the Securities and Exchange...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

"Landmark Judgment on Property Rights and Public Welfare in Mumbai" "Balancing property ownership with the collective good under India's constitutional framework."

The Supreme Court examined whether Chapter VIII-A of the MHADA Act aligns with the principles of Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution, which aims ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice for AY 2015-2016 Due to Non-Compliance with Section 148A(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Notice issued under old regime after 01.04.2021 without following mandatory procedure under new provisions is invalid.

The petitioner, Parthav Girishbhai Desai, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Cou...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Hears Appeals on Forum for Trial in SEBI Act Cases — Retrospective Application of 2002 and 2014 Amendments Disputed. Court Considers Whether Change from Magistrate to Sessions Court and Subsequent Special Courts Affects Pre‑2002 Offences Still Pending.

This batch of appeals and petitions before the Supreme Court concerned the proper forum for trial of offences under the Securities and Exchange Board ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal in Construction Dispute — No Sanction Order Existed, No Estoppel Against Corporation. Plaintiffs failed to prove deemed sanction under Section 264 of Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 as no formal order was passed and no notice of revocation was issued.

The appellants, original plaintiffs, owned plot nos. 71/72, 70/2 and 70/3 on Sheet No. 67-D at Amravati. They filed Regular Civil Suit No. 193 of 1988...