Supreme Court Rules Appeal Does Not Abate if Estate is Sufficiently Represented.
12 Jan 2026This judgment concerns two connected civil appeals arising from suits for specific performance and eviction. In Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2026, the High...
Search Results for "Void Order"
5128 result(s) found
Found 5128 result(s)
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Quashes Penalty Imposed by Visvesvaraya Technological University on Student for Malpractice as Order was Passed Without Jurisdiction. Registrar’s Order Violated Regulations by Bypassing Vice-Chancellor and Executive Council, Rendered Void Ab Initio.
1 Jul 2021The Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU) imposed a penalty on a mechanical engineering student for alleged malpractice during the second semest...
- 40
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Allows Wife's Appeal Declaring Marriage Void Under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Inter-Faith Marriage Not Solemnized as per Hindu Rites. Marriage between a Christian and a Hindu is void ab initio under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as the Act applies only to Hindus.
29 Jun 2020The appellant, Rency Mathew, a Christian by faith, married the respondent, Bharath Kumar, a Hindu, on 12.12.2005 according to Hindu customs and rites....
- 216
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Upholds Preventive Detention Orders Under COFEPOSA for Gold Smuggling — High Court's Quashing Set Aside for Non-Application of Mind Regarding Bail Likelihood. The Court held that the detaining authority must record satisfaction of imminent bail possibility, but service of documents within statutory period is valid.
18 Jul 2019The Supreme Court of India heard appeals against the Bombay High Court's judgment dated 25.06.2019 quashing preventive detention orders passed under S...
- 423
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Non-Application of Mind — Failure to Consider Bail Orders and In-camera Statements Renders Detention Invalid
21 Feb 2020The petitioner, Shamim Makmood Khan, mother of detenu Firoj @ Babbali Maqbul Khan, challenged a preventive detention order dated 16 October 2019 passe...
- 70
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge to Section 27(3) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Summary Trial for Non-Compliance Upheld. Section 27(3) is a complete code and does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
18 Jul 2013The petitioner, Shri A. G. Sawant, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure...
- 56
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeal in Land Grant Dispute — Upholds Single Judge's Order Setting Aside Alienation of Granted Land. Transfer of land granted to a member of Scheduled Caste without prior permission of the Government is void under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
26 Feb 2021The case pertains to a land grant made to Smt. Chowdamma, a member of the Scheduled Caste, under an Official Memorandum dated 18.1.1979. The land was ...
- 52
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in SARFAESI Act Case — Plaint Rejection Upheld for Lack of Civil Court Jurisdiction. Dispute over mortgaged properties held to be exclusively triable by DRT under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act, 2002.
4 Sep 2023The case involves two appeals arising from a suit filed by Pooja Ravikumar Nidasoshi and Vandana (plaintiffs) against the Gadhinglaj Urban Co-operativ...
- 47
High Court
High Court of Judicature at Bombay Considers Challenge to Arbitral Award Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act in Property Development Dispute. Petitioners Argue Award is Unreasoned and Arbitrator Failed to Independently Analyze Submissions, Seeking Set Aside.
19 Nov 2025Background: The matter involved a property development dispute concerning three tribal (Adivasi) lands in Malad, Mumbai. The petitioners were legal he...
- 13
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Quashes Order Removing Land Entries in Victimization Case — Dual Stand by Government Authorities Under Karnataka Land Revenue Act and SC/ST Act Leads to Setting Aside of Impugned Order. The court held that the petitioner was victimized by the contradictory stands of the Assistant Commissioner under the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 and the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and quashed the order directing removal of entries.
17 Feb 2020The petitioner, Krishnappa, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order dated 10.11.2011 passed by ...
- 176
