Search Results for "advance refund"

779 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 779 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Arbitral Award in Service Agreement Dispute. Court holds that an arbitral award granting refund of mobilization advance and damages for breach of contract does not warrant interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The petitioner, Hind Offshore Private Limited, filed a petition under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an order d...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Public Interest Prevails Over Private Rights: : BIADA vs M/s Scope Sales Pvt Ltd (2026 INSC 89)

The case arose when the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) allotted land to M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. for commercial use. Subsequentl...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Selection of Reader in Ayurvedic College — Selection Process Not Vitiated by Alleged Bias or Procedural Irregularities. Petitioner Failed to Prove Bias or Mala Fides in Selection Under Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.

The petitioner, Dr. Rajeshkumar Prakashchandra Gupta, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the ju...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Rejection of Additional Documents in Civil Suit — Belated Filing to Fill Lacuna Not Permitted. Trial court's discretion to reject application for producing resolution and letter of authority during cross-examination upheld as no justifiable cause shown.

The petitioners, M/s. BGC International Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Balaji Pothraj, were defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 22/2007/A filed by the respondents...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Production of Additional Documents in Civil Suit — Emphasizes Liberal Approach Under CPC Order 13 Rule 1. The Court held that mere delay or suspicion of afterthought is not sufficient to reject documents if no prejudice is caused and cross-examination is ongoing.

The petitioners, defendants in a civil suit for refund of advance of Rs.30 lakhs, filed an application during cross-examination of their witness (DW.1...