KAHC010448052021_1
7 Feb 2025These Miscellaneous First Appeals were filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer of Visvesvaraya Jala Nigam Limited, the acquiring body, challenging t...
Search Results for "notice under CPC"
3628 result(s) found
Found 3628 result(s)
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Quashes Special Court Order in POCSO Case — Accused's Age Determination Requires Proper Inquiry Under Juvenile Justice Act. The court held that the Special Judge must conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 read with Section 34 of the POCSO Act, 2012 to determine juvenility before proceeding with trial.
23 Apr 2016The petitioner, Siddu @ Siddeshwar, was arraigned as an accused in Special Case No.4/2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bi...
- 96
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging DRT Order in SARFAESI Act Matter — One Time Settlement Not Binding as Bank Did Not Accept Offer. Court Held That Mere Submission of OTS Proposal Does Not Create Binding Contract; Bank's Rejection Valid.
8 Jul 2024The petitioners, borrowers of the respondent bank, challenged the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Bangalore in Diary No...
- 139
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Rejection of Application Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in Suit for Specific Performance. Court Holds That Agreement to Sell Need Not Be Registered Under Maharashtra Stamp Act for Purposes of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and That Questions of Limitation and Valuation Are Mixed Questions of Fact and Law Not Decided at Threshold.
28 Mar 2023The petitioner, Vijay Shivram Pathare, filed a Civil Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 8th Augu...
- 55
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Union's Petition Challenging Cancellation of Recognition Under Section 13 of MRTU & PULP Act — Employer Has Locus to Seek Cancellation of Union Recognition. The Court held that Section 13 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 does not restrict the right to apply for cancellation of recognition to any particular category, and the employer, being a necessary party, can maintain such an application.
26 Sep 2016The petitioner, Association of Engineering Workers, a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, was granted recognition by the Industri...
- 244
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Foreign Award Execution Case Due to Property Location. Territorial jurisdiction for execution of foreign award under Section 48 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is determined by location of property to be attached, not by place of cause of action.
30 Jan 2012The appellant, Wireless Developers Inc., a US company, obtained a foreign arbitral award against the respondent, Indiagames Ltd., an Indian company, f...
- 93
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Permanent Injunction — Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227 Not to Be Used to Reappreciate Evidence. The Court Held That Concurrent Findings of Fact by Trial Court and Appellate Court Cannot Be Interfered With Unless Perverse or Jurisdictional Error Exists.
25 Sep 2025The petitioners, who were the plaintiffs in a suit for permanent injunction, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India chal...
- 58
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revision Petition Challenging Trial Court Order Refusing to Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree in Partition Suit — Petitioner Failed to Show Sufficient Cause for Non-Appearance Under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
4 Mar 2024The petitioner, Mahesh, filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC challenging the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal, dated 24.01...
- 265
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Execution Proceedings — Possessory Title Not Required for Restoration Under Order XXI Rules 98-100 CPC. High Court erred in ordering restoration of possession without determining whether respondent had any right to possession under Order XXI Rules 98-100 CPC.
29 Jul 2019The Supreme Court considered an appeal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had allowed the appeal of the respondent (Lt. Col. Nahar ...
- 359
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals in Property Suit — Upholds Refusal to Strike Out Defence Under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC for Failure to File Written Statement Within 90 Days. The court held that the power to strike out defence is discretionary and not automatic, and that non-disclosure of defence under Order 6A Rule 3 CPC does not justify striking out.
21 Dec 2017The present appeals arise from a suit filed in 1987 by Behram Nowrosji Gamadia and Jehangir Dhan Mistri (original plaintiffs) against several defendan...
- 74
