Search Results for "measurement dispute"

687 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 687 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Testimony and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Section 302 IPC Set Aside as Eye-Witnesses' Evidence Found Inconsistent and Recovery Doubtful.

The appellant, Ranjeet s/o Haribhau Jadhav, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Parbhani, for the murder of Datta under Section 302 IPC and under Sec...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Rejection of Reference Under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act Due to Non-Application of Mind. Collector Directed to Decide Afresh After Hearing Petitioners.

The petitioners, legal representatives of the original landowner Mahadev Sadhu Ingale, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Husband in Dowry Death Case — Conviction Under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Confirmed Based on Consistent Evidence of Harassment and Demand for Dowry

The appellant, Jalal Siddiqui Mulla, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.773 of 2010 for offences under...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Six Accused in Double Murder Case Due to Unreliable Testimony and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction Based Solely on Interested Witnesses and Improper Identification Fails to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt Under Sections 148, 302 r/w 149 IPC.

The case pertains to a double murder that occurred on 27 May 1996 at 8:30 PM in village Madhyal, Taluka Kagal, District Kolhapur. The appellants, orig...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Suit for Specific Performance of Development Agreement Due to Lack of Privity of Contract and Non-Existence of Agreement. Plaintiff failed to establish any agreement with Defendant No.1 and the agreement with Defendant No.2 was not proved to be in existence.

The Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 10.11.2003 allegedly entered into with Defendant No.2 for development of pro...