Search Results for "Section 21(2) Legal Services Authorities Act"

50 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 50 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses PIL Seeking Investigation Under Section 212 of Companies Act, 2013 Against Azim Premji and Others — Petition Held Not Maintainable Due to Lack of Personal Cause of Action and Availability of Alternative Remedy Under Section 213 of Companies Act, 2013.

The petitioner, India Awake for Transparency, a non-governmental organization, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India se...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows State Appeals in MP Assistant Professor Selection — OBC Female Candidates Cannot Occupy Unreserved Female Seats. Horizontal Reservation for Women Must Operate Within Respective Vertical Categories, Not Across Categories.

The Supreme Court of India heard a batch of civil appeals arising from a common judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 29.04.2020 concerning ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Sets Aside Land Acquisition for Private Companies Due to Lack of Public Purpose and Favoritism. State's Exercise of Eminent Domain Found to be Misused for Allocating Valuable Land to Private Entities Without Legitimate Industrial Development Goals.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru heard a writ appeal challenging a single judge's order dated 06.03.2013 in W.P.No.17211/2009. The appeal was ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Licensing Conditions on Orchestra Bars Under Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Gender-Based Numerical Restrictions on Performers Held Valid as Reasonable Restrictions in Public Interest Under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

The appeals arose from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay that upheld conditions imposed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, on orchestr...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Strikes Down Rule 19(2) of Bombay Parole and Furlough Rules, 1959 as Unconstitutional — Mandatory One-Year Gap Between Parole Releases Violates Article 14 and 21. Rule 19(2) held arbitrary and irrational for imposing blanket bar without considering individual circumstances.

The petitioner, Kantilal Nandlal Jaiswal, a life convict undergoing sentence for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, along with other ...