RFIRST APPEAL NO. 3732 of 2023
30 Jan 2026The High Court of Gujarat heard two appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limite...
Search Results for "Commercial Division jurisdiction"
3090 result(s) found
Found 3090 result(s)
High Court
Bombay High Court Upholds Admission of Winding-Up Petition Against Telecom Company Due to Substratum Erosion and Deadlock. Cancellation of 2G Licences and Irreconcilable Differences Between Equal Shareholders Justify Winding-Up Under Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956.
8 Apr 2014The appeal arose from an order of the company judge admitting a petition for winding up of Etisalat D.B. Telecom Limited (the company) under Section 4...
- 62
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Refusal of Anti-Arbitration Injunction in Facilitation Deed Dispute. Court Holds That Arbitral Tribunal Has Competence to Decide Validity of Underlying Agreement Under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
17 Sep 2010The appeal arises from a commercial dispute between MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd. (Sony) and World Sport Group (Mauritius) Limited (WSG) concerni...
- 147
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Developer's Petition in Amenity Space Computation Dispute — D.P. Road Area Must Be Adjusted Against Total Amenity Space Under DCR 57(4)(c)(ii). The court held that the Municipal Corporation's refusal to sanction plans based on a misinterpretation of DCR 57(4)(c)(ii) and Note II was arbitrary and unsustainable.
5 Sep 2023The petitioner, Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd, a developer, owned a plot of land in Mumbai and submitted development plans to the Municipal Corporation ...
- 204
High Court
Bombay High Court Adjudicates Writ Petition Against IGST Demand of Rs.1524 Crores on Arbitration Award Damages. Issue Pertains to Whether Damages Paid Under Deemed Decree Constitute Consideration for Taxable Service Under IGST Act, 2017.
30 Apr 2026The dispute centers on a writ petition filed by Tata Sons Private Limited (Tata) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an intima...
- 86
High Court
High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Railway Shoe-Shine Policy and Upholds Tender Process for Cooperative Societies. Policy aimed at generating employment for lower strata through cooperative societies was held not arbitrary, and petitioner's claim for exclusive contract was rejected as right to livelihood does not confer monopoly under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
18 Mar 2026The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by Petitioners, a society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, against the ...
- 528
High Court
- 158
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Planned Development by YEIDA - Urgency Provisions Validly Invoked. The court held that the invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land for integrated development was justified and the landowners' right to hearing under Section 5-A was validly dispensed with.
26 Nov 2024The Supreme Court, in a batch of civil appeals, considered the validity of land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Uttar Pradesh throug...
- 649
High Court
High Court of Judicature at Bombay Considers Interim Injunction in Pledge Enforcement and Share Transfer Dispute — Application Seeks to Restrain Voting and Transfer Rights Over Pledged Shares. Pledgee Rights Under Section 176 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 and SEBI Takeover Code Disclosure Obligations Are Central to Dispute.
4 Sep 2023The matter arose from Interim Application (L) No. 29574 of 2021 filed in Commercial Suit No. 189 of 2022 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay...
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Petition in Commercial Suit Due to COVID-19 Pandemic — Delay in Filing Written Statement Condoned. The Court held that the pandemic constituted sufficient cause for extension of time under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the trial court's rejection was erroneous.
13 Dec 2021The petitioners, defendants in a commercial suit filed by Pyrotek India Private Limited, challenged the order of the learned District Judge (Commercia...
- 42
