Search Results for "Debatable Issue"

169 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 169 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Reviews Remand Authority in Mumbai Slum Redevelopment Dispute. Key Decision on Appellate Powers and Arbitral Award Validity in Complex Multi-Party Case

The Supreme Court is addressing appeals concerning a High Court judgment on a slum redevelopment project in Mumbai. The case involves various parties,...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Entertainment Duty on Award Function with Intermittent Performances. Sponsorship Amount for Invitee-Only Event Constitutes Payment for Admission Under Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act.

The petitioner, a company incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, organized the 'APSARA' award function on 21st January 2006 at Jams...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appointment of Arbitral Tribunal in EPC Contract Dispute — Respondent Failed to Respond to Invocation of Arbitration Clause. Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator Under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as Respondent Did Not Object to Appointment Despite Notice.

The applicant, Vedanta Limited, filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an Arbitra...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Holds Anticipatory Bail Application Maintainable Despite Applicant's Custody in Another Crime. Section 438 CrPC Does Not Bar a Person Already Arrested in a Different Case from Seeking Pre-Arrest Bail.

The applicant, Amar S. Mulchandani, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC in connection with C.R.No.806 of 2019 registered at ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Management's Petition Challenging Reinstatement of Teacher Terminated Without Inquiry. Termination of Teacher Without Valid Departmental Inquiry Under Section 5 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, 1977 is Illegal and Reinstatement with Backwages is Justified.

The Petitioner-Management, a trust running schools, terminated Respondent No.1, an Assistant Teacher, on 10 January 2011. The termination was challeng...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Transfer Petitions in Criminal Cases Alleging Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction — Cause of Action Not Wholly Absent in Gurugram

The petitioner, Kaushik Chatterjee, was appointed as Group Chief Risk Officer-Executive Director of a non-banking finance company (the second responde...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Husband's Petition Against Wife's Demand for Compulsory Sexual Relations or IVF. Court holds that forcing a spouse to procreate violates Article 21 and is against public policy.

The case involves a marital dispute between a husband (petitioner) and wife (respondent). The husband filed for divorce at Panvel, while the wife file...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Magistrate to Order Voice Sample of Accused in Criminal Investigation. Article 20(3) Does Not Bar Compelled Voice Sample as It Is Not Testimonial Evidence Under Section 53 CrPC.

The case arises from an FIR lodged on 7th December 2009 at Sadar Bazar Police Station, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, alleging that Dhoom Singh and appell...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Partition Suit — Co-owner Cannot Claim Adverse Possession Without Ouster. Preliminary Decree Set Aside for Failure to Determine Shares Under Hindu Succession Act.

The present appeal arises from a partition suit filed by the respondent (original plaintiff) against the appellant (original defendant) concerning anc...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court Holds That Evidence in Parsi Divorce Suits May Be Recorded Before a Commissioner Under CPC Order 18 Rule 4(2) — Section 46 of Parsi Marriage & Divorce Act, 1936 Does Not Mandate In-Court Recording with Delegates.

The case involved a suit filed under the Parsi Marriage & Divorce Act, 1936, by Rohinton Panthaky against Armin R. Panthaky. During the proceedings, a...