Search Results for "concurrent hearing"

1984 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1984 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Partition Suit, Upholding High Court's Decree on Property Shares and Invalidating Compromise. Legal Heirs' Dispute Over Ancestral and Self-Acquired Properties Resolved with Shares Determined Under Hindu Law, and Compromise Set Aside Under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The litigation originated from a partition suit filed by Charulata Sahoo (plaintiff) against her brother Prafulla Sahoo (defendant No. 1) and sister S...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Revision Petitions in VAT Reassessment Cases — Reassessment Orders Set Aside for Non-Compliance with Section 39(1) of KVAT Act, 2003. Mandatory Pre-Decision Hearing Requirement Not Waived Despite Assessee's Participation in Subsequent Proceedings.

The judgment concerns five revision petitions filed under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) against orders of the Ka...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings Set Aside Due to Non-Application of Mind by Lower Appellate Court. Failure to Frame Points for Determination Under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC Warrants Remand for Fresh Disposal.

The present second appeal arises from a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the original plaintiff (respondent herein) against the original d...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Waqf Tribunal Remand Order in Gausiya Masjid Dispute. Court upholds Tribunal's decision to remand matter to Waqf Board for fresh hearing, finding no jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned order.

The case involves a civil revision application filed by eleven applicants against an order of the Waqf Tribunal. The dispute pertains to Gausiya Masji...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With Under Section 100 CPC. Court holds that no substantial question of law arises when both lower courts have concurrently found that the plaintiffs failed to prove title and possession.

The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the original suit, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challengin...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Quashes Revenue Entries Cancellation Orders for Violation of Natural Justice. Petitioner's Property Rights Restored as Ex-Parte Cancellation Without Notice Held Illegal Under Articles 14, 19, 300A, 226, 227 of Constitution.

The petitioner, Thakkar Yogeshbhai Amritlal, filed a petition under Articles 14, 19, 300A, 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging multi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Adjudicates Appeal Against High Court's Order Setting Aside Arbitral Award Under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Dispute Involves Interpretation of Contractual Notice Requirement as Condition Precedent and Applicability of Waiver and Estoppel in EPC Contract.

The dispute arose from multiple Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) agreements between SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation (con...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2486 OF 2005

The suit was filed by shareholders of Spice Jet Ltd, a domestic airline company formerly known as Modi Luft, which had undergone several ownership cha...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction Decree Against Tenants for Default in Rent Payment, Dismisses Landlords' Cross-Appeal on Subletting. The Court held that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were direct tenants of the Plaintiffs and not sub-tenants, and decreed eviction solely on ground of default in payment of rent.

The case involves cross proceedings between the landlords (Plaintiffs) and the tenants (Defendant Nos. 2 and 3) concerning a suit premises in Pune. Th...