Search Results for "exhaustive grounds"

1110 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1110 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Section 34 Petition Against Arbitral Award in Investment Dispute. Court upholds award of damages for breach of investment agreement, finding no patent illegality or perversity in arbitrator's findings.

The case involves a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to an arbitral award dated 15th June 2017. The petitioner...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Quashes Detention Order Due to Unexplained Delay in Preventive Detention Case — Live Link Between Grounds and Purpose Snapped. Unexplained delay of 19 days between arrest and detention order renders detention invalid under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, Ramani, mother of the detenu Kannan, filed a Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the det...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Quashes Detention Order in Drug Offender Case Due to Unexplained Delay — Live Link Snapped Between Grounds and Purpose of Detention. Preventive Detention Order Under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 Set Aside as Delay of 40 Days Between Arrest and Order Remained Unexplained.

The petitioner, brother of the detenu Thirumoorthy, filed a Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras Hi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Petition, Quashes Detention Order Due to Unexplained Delay Between Arrest and Detention Order. Unexplained delay of 37 days snaps the 'live and proximate link' between grounds of detention and purpose of detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

The petitioner, Sarojini, filed a Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention order dated 29.07.20...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court Condemns Demolition by Municipal Corporation Under Guise of DCPR 2034 Redevelopment Scheme. Appeal from Order Dismisses Demolition as High-handed and Illegal Under Regulation 33(9) of Development Control and Promotion Regulation 2034.

The matter pertains to an appeal from order filed by M/s. Mehta & Co., a partnership firm through its partner Mr. Adarsh Varma, as original plaintiff,...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Adjudicates Civil Revision Application Arising from Order in CMA. The matter involved an application under an unspecified provision and challenges an interlocutory order passed in the trial court.

The limited available text indicates that the Bombay High Court heard a Civil Revision Application No. 728 of 2023 filed by Shaikh Mohammad Azahar Moh...