Search Results for "Section 2(13)"

860 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 860 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Aurangabad Bench Hears First Appeals Against Common Decree in Two Special Civil Suits; Dispute Involves Recovery for Liquor Supplies and Refund of Security Deposit, Raising Issues of Adjustment, Burden of Proof, and Competency to Sue

These three first appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 arise from a common judgment dated 11-10-1999 by the 4th Joint Civil J...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Arbitration Appointment Despite Limitation Bar — Scope of Section 11(6A) Confined to Existence of Arbitration Agreement. The 2015 Amendment Act restricts court's role to checking arbitration agreement existence, leaving limitation and other issues to arbitrator under Section 16.

The dispute arose from an agreement dated 21.12.2010 between M/s. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited (Petitioner-Contractor) and Northern Co...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Application Under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for Computation of Minimum Wages. Labour Court erred in dismissing claim for difference in wages on ground of limitation and lack of adjudication of entitlement.

The petitioner, Shri Tularam Manikrao Hadge, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Nag...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses State's Appeal Against Acquittal in Legal Metrology Case Due to Non-Compliance with Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. — Leave to Appeal Not Sought from Trial Court.

The State of Goa, through the Inspector of Legal Metrology, filed a criminal complaint against M/s Bata India Ltd. and its managers under Section 39 o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Appellant in POCSO Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 4 and 10 of POCSO Act set aside as victim's testimony was unreliable and medical evidence did not support sexual assault.

The appellant, Vitthal Rajendra Jogade, was convicted by the Special Judge, Solapur, under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sectio...