Search Results for "government order cancellation"

2154 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 2154 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Refund of Stamp Duty on Cancelled Development Agreement Under Section 47(c)(5) of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. Petitioner entitled to refund as transaction was cancelled before possession and within two years, not covered by Section 48 proviso.

The Petitioner, M/s. Satyam Construction, entered into a Development Agreement on 2 June 2011 with Shri Rajiv Ghule and others for development of land...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging NA Permission Cancellation for Land of Restricted Tenure. Failure to Obtain Prior Consent Under Section 43 of Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 Renders NA Permission Void Ab Initio.

The petitioner, Shradhdha Land Corporation & Organisers, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the G...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

"Deputy Commissioner Cannot Exceed Revisional Jurisdiction Under Karnataka Municipalities Act – Karnataka High Court Quashes Building Licence and Khata Cancellation Orders for Violation of Natural Justice"

The petitioner challenged the orders dated 27.11.2013 and 02.08.2017 whereby the building licence granted in respect of the subject property was cance...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Exemption Order Under ULC Act Due to Reservation in Development Plan — Petitioner Failed to Implement Scheme Despite Exemption, No Ground for Modification After Repeal of ULC Act.

The petitioner, Smt. Sitabai Ramchandra Lonkar, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13th ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under COFEPOSA for Non-Placement of Bail Order Before Detaining Authority. The court held that the bail order was a vital document and its non-consideration vitiated the subjective satisfaction under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974.

The petitioner, brother of the detinue, filed a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the detention order dated 17th...