WRIT PETITION NO. 5539 OF 2017
5 Feb 2019The petitioner, M/s. Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the Bombay High Court...
Search Results for "written application"
11337 result(s) found
Found 11337 result(s)
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Permission to File Written Statement Beyond Limitation in Specific Performance Suit. Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Held Directory; Legal Representatives of Deceased Defendant Allowed to File Written Statement as No Prejudice Caused to Plaintiff.
18 Nov 2019The petitioner, Subhash Dhanraj Sankla, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a property owned by Rhoda Phiroze Noble. The ori...
- 118
High Court
Bombay High Court Hears Appeal on Section 9A CPC Issue Concerning Land Rights. Court Considers Whether Trial Court Must Decide Jurisdiction Application Before Interim Relief in Suit Involving Salsette Act and Land Revenue Code.
16 Jan 2017The appeals from order were heard finally at admission stage on a preliminary issue raised by the appellant under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Proc...
- 83
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Considers Application Under Section 434 Companies Act Seeking Transfer of Winding-Up Petition to NCLT. Applicant Argues No Irreversible Steps Taken, Citing Supreme Court Precedent.
23 Jun 2026The matter arose from a Company Petition filed in 2010 seeking winding up of Broadcast Infratel India Private Limited on grounds of unpaid admitted de...
- 62
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Allows Appeal in IBC Limitation Dispute — Application Under Section 7 Held Barred by Limitation. Acknowledgment of Debt in Balance Sheets Does Not Extend Limitation for Initiating CIRP Under IBC.
9 Aug 2019The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Babulal Vardharji Gurjar, a director of Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., against the order of...
- 236
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Application to Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree in Summary Suit. Court holds that the trial court failed to consider that the defendant had a valid defence and that the ex-parte decree was passed without proper service of summons under Order 37 CPC.
12 Dec 2011The petitioners, Kishor Raghunath Pande and Vijaya Raghunath Pande, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a...
- 158
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Contempt References Against Complainant for Filing Transfer Applications Alleging Bias. Filing of Transfer Applications Seeking Recusal of Judge Does Not Constitute Criminal Contempt Under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
21 Apr 2010The Bombay High Court dealt with two criminal references under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, made by the Principal District Judge...
- 139
High Court
Madras High Court Allows Final Decree Application in Mortgage Suit Despite Limitation — Time Spent in Earlier Litigation Excluded Under Section 14 of Limitation Act. The court held that the plaintiff's final decree application was within limitation as the period during which the defendant challenged the ex parte decree was excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
29 Jan 2026The case arises from a mortgage suit filed by M/s. Visu Financiers (plaintiff) against G. Sundararaj (defendant) for recovery of money due on a mortga...
- 143
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Allows Plaintiff in Commercial Suit for Leave to File Additional Documents Due to Timely Application and Necessity for Just Decision. Court held that plaintiff's application under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of CPC should be permitted as it was filed within 30 days of suit filing under Order XI Rule 1(4) and documents were essential for fair trial in trademark infringement case.
15 Sep 2021The dispute arose from a commercial suit filed by the plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for trademark infringement relate...
- 626
High Court
High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Mundkar Declaration — Upholds Concurrent Findings That Petitioners Failed to Prove Mundkar Status Under Section 8A of Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. The court held that the burden of proof lies on the claimant and the concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse.
12 Oct 2012The petitioners, Shri Vassant Krishna Palyekar and Smt. Vanita V. Palyekar, filed a writ petition challenging the common judgment and order dated 05.0...
- 186
