Search Results for "Central Board"

4845 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 4845 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under Insecticides Act for Lack of Sanction — Prosecution Initiated Without Mandatory Consent Under Section 31(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 Is Void Ab Initio.

The petitioner, B.S. Suresh Babu, proprietor of Karnataka Traders, filed multiple writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read w...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Quashing Attachment Notices Against Third-Party Purchaser for Excise Dues of Defaulter. Central Excise Cannot Attach Property Sold Prior to Creation of Dues Without Notice to Purchaser Under Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944.

The Petitioner, M/s Runwal Constructions, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, engaged in construction and developmen...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Considers Challenge to Leave India Notice by Australian Employee over Alleged Violation of Natural Justice and FRRO's Jurisdiction. Employment Visa Grant by High Commission Not Subject to FRRO's Nullification, Argues Petitioner.

The writ petition was filed by an Australian citizen, who held an Employment Visa (E-2) valid from 08.01.2018 to 07.01.2020, after being appointed as ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Holds Juvenile Cannot File Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 CrPC; Remedy Lies Under Juvenile Justice Act. The JJ Act is a complete code providing for bail provisions for children in conflict with law, and Section 438 CrPC is not available to them.

The case involved a reference to a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court to decide whether a juvenile in conflict with law can file an application f...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging BCCI's Amendment Excluding IPL and CLT20 from Conflict of Interest Regulations. The court held that the amendment was a valid policy decision by a private body and not subject to judicial review unless it violates statutory provisions or fundamental rights.

The petitioner, Cricket Association of Bihar, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the amendment to Regulation 6.2.4 of the BCCI Regul...