Search Results for "Hyderabad court"

1612 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1612 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Industrial Court's Order Holding Retrenchment as Unfair Labour Practice. Non-compliance with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act renders retrenchment illegal and amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act.

The petitioner, Shekoba Auto Private Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, was engaged in the manufacture of automobile ignition...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Husband's Revision Challenging Maintenance Award to Wife Under Section 125 CrPC. Court Holds That Wife's Ability to Earn Does Not Disentitle Her to Maintenance If She Is Unable to Maintain Herself, and Husband Failed to Prove Wife's Income or Desertion.

The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Keshaorao Ramchandra Wairagade (husband) challenging the order of the Family Court, Nagpur,...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Concurrent Findings of Trial and First Appellate Court Upheld. Agreement of Sale Proved by Plaintiff, Defendants Failed to Discharge Burden of Proof Under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The appellants (defendants) filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the concurrent judgments...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Petition by Father Seeking Custody of Child from Mother. Habeas Corpus Not Maintainable for Child Custody Between Parents; Remedy Lies Under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

The petitioner, Dr. Shreyas Dilip Mandre, filed a writ of habeas corpus before the Bombay High Court seeking production of his minor child 'N' from th...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Holds Section 13(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Directory — District Forum Can Extend Time for Filing Reply Beyond 45 Days in Exceptional Circumstances. The 30-day period for filing reply commences from receipt of notice by the opposite party.

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench addressed two questions referred regarding Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The first quest...