Search Results for "marine drive"

122 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 122 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Orders Under COFEPOSA for Non-Application of Mind and Violation of Right to Representation. Detenu's Right to Make Representation Under Article 22(5) of Constitution Infringed Due to Non-Supply of Grounds in Understandable Language and Unexplained Delay.

The Bombay High Court allowed two criminal writ petitions challenging preventive detention orders passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange an...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Rejection of Application for Production of Document in Criminal Complaint. Court holds that the document sought was not relevant to the proceedings and the application was filed belatedly.

The petitioner, Manjula Ramlal Barot, filed a criminal complaint against respondents No.1 to 5 for offences under Sections 347, 348, 386, 395, 506(ii)...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Construction of 38-Story Building in Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, Holding No Violation of CRZ Norms or FSI Regulations. The court found that the building was not located on a CRZ-I area and that the FSI granted was within permissible limits under DCR 58.

The petitioners, comprising residents' associations and trusts, filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the construction of a 38-story building...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Directs Registrar of Companies to Expedite Inquiry in Company Affairs Case. Court disposes of writ petition with direction to complete investigation within two months in interest of justice.

The petitioners, six individuals including Baburao Marotirao Sapkal and others, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seek...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Partnership Dispute — No Grounds for Interference Under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitrator's Findings of Fact Are Final and Not Re-Examinable Under Section 34.

The petitioners, Dr. Dhiren Lalit Shah and others, filed an Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, chall...