Search Results for "arbitrary date"

5452 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 5452 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Extension of Toll Collection Period in BOT Road Project. Court holds that concession period extension is a contractual matter and not subject to judicial review under Article 226 in absence of arbitrariness or public interest violation.

The petitioners, claiming to be public-spirited citizens, filed a writ petition in public interest challenging the decision of the State of Maharashtr...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Hears Writ Petition Challenging Recall of Tender for Mine Operator Under Section 14 of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999. Court Examines Whether Lowest Bidder Has Vested Right and Whether Conviction of Ex-Directors Justifies Cancellation.

The Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (the Corporation) issued a notice inviting tender on 02.12.2020 for the selection of a Mine Operator for the d...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Reserves Judgment in Multiparty Dispute Over Land Ownership and Compensation Under Inam Abolition Act. Privy Council Declaration of Inam Title and Forest Management Agreement Form Core of Dispute Over 157‑Acre Property Transferred to CIDCO Without Acquisition.

The dispute concerned a large parcel of land bearing Survey No. 51/0 at Ulwe, Raigad, originally granted in 1816. The Bivalkars claimed ownership thro...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Adjudicated Three Writ Petitions Involving Ownership and Compensation for Land at Village Ulwe. The Petitions Raised Issues Under the Inam Abolition Act, Land Acquisition Act, and the Indian Forest Act Regarding Vesting, Compensation, and Restoration of Possession.

The dispute arose from three writ petitions filed before the Bombay High Court concerning land bearing Survey No. 51/0 at village Ulwe, Taluka Panvel,...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Denial of Promotion Due to Minor Penalty — Government Policy Upheld. Clause B of GR dated 15.12.2017, which denies promotion during currency of penalty, is not violative of Articles 14, 16, and 20(2) of the Constitution.

The petitioner, Mohan Vasantrao Sangvikar, a Sub-Divisional Engineer in the Public Works Department, challenged the order of the Maharashtra Administr...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Termination of Probationary Employees in Air India Ltd. — Probationers Have No Right to Be Confirmed and Termination Without Stigma Is Valid.

The judgment pertains to two writ petitions filed by Jeetendra Krishna Varma (WP 875/2011) and Mayank Mohan Sharma (WP 1427/2015) against Air India Lt...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Strikes Down Rule 19(2) of Bombay Parole and Furlough Rules, 1959 as Unconstitutional — Mandatory One-Year Gap Between Parole Releases Violates Article 14 and 21. Rule 19(2) held arbitrary and irrational for imposing blanket bar without considering individual circumstances.

The petitioner, Kantilal Nandlal Jaiswal, a life convict undergoing sentence for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, along with other ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging SEBI Recovery Proceedings and Civil Imprisonment Order for Non-Payment of Dues. Recovery Officer's Order for Arrest and Detention of Defaulter Under Section 28A of SEBI Act, 1992 Upheld as Valid Exercise of Powers.

The petitioner, Vinod Hinigorani, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of orders dated 18.12....

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petitions Challenging Revocation of Nominations from Maharashtra State Minorities Commission. Statutory Requirement of Reasonable Opportunity of Hearing Under Section 5 of Maharashtra State Minorities Commission Act, 2004 Not Complied With.

The Bombay High Court allowed two writ petitions challenging the revocation of nominations of the petitioners from the Maharashtra State Minorities Co...