Search Results for "1964 Rules"

1695 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1695 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay Addresses Divergence on Reservation Act and Promotion Policy — Constitutional Validity Issue Deemed Academic. Third Judge Holds that Tribunal Overstepped in Striking Down Reservation Act as the Core Dispute Concerned Promotion Quotas, Not Direct Recruitment Reservations.

The matter originated from a reference by the Chief Justice under Rule 7, Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, necessitated by a d...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Filed by Company Against Government Order Fixing Market Value of Encroached Land and Demanding Payment of Rs. 982 Crores for 77 Acres 19 Guntas; Upholds Government's Valuation Determined Pursuant to Supreme Court Directions in Civil Appeal No. 5181/2003

M/S Chamundeswari Build Tech Private Limited (petitioner), incorporated in 1994, developed a golf resort, Eagleton Golf Resort, in Ramanagara District...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Considers Interim Injunction in Trade Mark Passing Off Dispute Involving 'Ajanta' Toothpaste. The Court Examines Claims of Prior Use Where Plaintiffs Alleged Sales from June 2002 and Defendants from December 2002.

Background: The dispute concerned the use of the trade mark 'Ajanta' for toothpaste. The plaintiffs claimed to be prior users of the mark for non-medi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Repeal of University Act — State's Power to Repeal Upheld as Reasonable Classification Under Article 14. Heritage Protection Justifies Singling Out Khalsa University for Repeal, Not Arbitrary.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal challenging the constitutional validity of the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017, passed by the Punjab Legis...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against High Court Order Returning Plaint for Want of Pecuniary Jurisdiction in Suit for Injunction and Damages. The Court Held That for Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Only Plaint Averments Are Relevant, Not Evidence.

The appellant, Bharat Bhushan Gupta, filed a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction and recovery of damages against the respondents, Pratap Nar...