Search Results for "unreasonable restriction"

422 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 422 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Age Limit for Promotion of Anganwadi Sevikas to Supervisors. Rule 7(1)(c) of Service Entry Rules, 2021, prescribing 45 years as maximum age for promotion, held not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution.

The petitioners, ten Anganwadi Sevikas from Akola district, challenged Rule 7(1)(c) of the Service Entry Rules, 2021, which prescribed a maximum age l...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court Upholds Rent Control Act, Denying Britannia’s Claim for Market Rent

The fixation of standard rent for an upscale apartment in Mumbai, which was rented to Maya Sunil Alagh, the wife of Britannia's former Managing Direct...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Women Army Officers' Right to Permanent Commission in Landmark Gender Equality Judgment. Court holds that women SSC officers are entitled to PC at par with male counterparts, rejecting discriminatory service conditions.

The case concerns a batch of appeals filed by the Ministry of Defence against a Delhi High Court judgment directing the grant of Permanent Commission ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Injunction in Non-Compete Clause Dispute. Temporary Injunction Granted to Restrain Former Employee from Competing with Employer for Three Years Based on Contractual Non-Compete Agreement.

The petitioner, Tapas Kanti Mandal, was employed by Cosmo Films Ltd. as a manager in its Research and Development Department from May 2003. He resigne...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging Inclusion of Dry Fruits Under APMC Act — Notifications Ultra Vires. Definition of Agricultural Produce Under Section 2(a) of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 is Exhaustive and Does Not Include Dry Fruits/Dry Dates.

The petitioner, a partnership firm dealing in dry fruits and dry dates, challenged the validity of notifications dated 20.6.1988 and 18.10.1988 issued...