Search Results for "promotion stay"

640 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 640 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Hears Appeal Against Company Law Board Order Dismissing Petition. Court Frames Questions on Applicability of Section 111A and Section 43A of Companies Act, 1956 to Deemed Public Company.

The appeal arose from a company petition filed by the appellants, members of the Kavasmaneck family, before the Company Law Board, Mumbai, alleging op...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Arbitral Tribunal's Jurisdictional Order as Not Maintainable. Remedy Lies Under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 After Final Award.

The petitioner, Tirupati Shopping Centre Premises Co-op. Society Limited, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Indi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Tribunal's Order Quashing Promotions of Assistant Engineers. Promotions Made Without Following Recruitment Rules and Without MPSC Consultation Were Held Illegal.

The case involves multiple writ petitions challenging the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 11.9.2003 in Original Application ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Dowry Death Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Demand for Dowry and Inconsistencies in Prosecution Case. Conviction under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Sections 3, 4, 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 set aside as prosecution failed to prove dowry demand soon before death.

The case pertains to the death of Shaheen, who was married to Abdul Aziz (accused No. 2) on 12th April 1996. After marriage, she resided with her husb...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Eviction Decree in Partnership Property Dispute. Concurrent findings of fact that defendants were licensees, not tenants, upheld under Article 227.

The petitioners (original defendants) were a partnership firm occupying premises owned by the respondent (original plaintiff) partnership firm. Initia...