Search Results for "block period"

3008 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 3008 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Hears and Decides Batch of Appeals Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Regarding Compensation for Kakhandaki Village Lands. The Court Examined Market Value Determinations Made by the Reference Court Under Sections 18 and 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Background: A batch of appeals and cross objections were filed before the High Court of Karnataka under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 189...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Adjudicates Multiple Appeals and Cross-Objections Challenging Compensation Awards in Land Acquisition Matters. The Court Determined Market Value of Lands Acquired for a Minor Irrigation Tank in Kakhandaki Village, Bijapur District.

In the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, a conglomeration of appeals and cross-objections under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 challenged the...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Corruption Case Due to Lack of Proof of Demand. High Court's reversal of conviction for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 upheld as prosecution failed to prove demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.

The case pertains to an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against the acquittal of the respondent, Chandrasha, by the High Court of Karnataka. Th...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Blocking of Input Tax Credit Under Rule 86-A of CGST/MGST Rules for Violation of Natural Justice. Prior Hearing Mandated Before Blocking Credit Under Rule 86-A.

The petitioner, Ashapura Steel Metal, through its proprietor Velaram Viraji Choudhary, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging No Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch Due to Insufficient Notice Period. Notice Period of 15 Days Under Section 35 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 Must Exclude Date of Notice and Date of Meeting.

The petitioner, Shaikh Jadanbee Shaikh Rais, was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Garkheda-Jomala, Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna. Respondent No.5, Sh...