Search Results for "Maharashtra Forest Rules"

421 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 421 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Delivers Judgment in Municipal Corporation's Writ Petition Seeking Infrastructure Project Clearance; Decision and Reasoning Not Provided in Available Excerpt.

The Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking directions to the respondent authori...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Industrial Court Remand Order in MRTU & PULP Act Case — Maintainability of Complaint Must Be Decided on Merits Without Remand. Relationship of Employer-Employee Must Be Admitted or Undisputed for Complaint Under Section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act to Be Maintainable.

The petitioners, employees of the Forest Department, filed Complaint (ULP) 13/2010 before the Labour Court, Yavatmal, alleging unfair labour practices...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Challenging Seizure of Vehicles Under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code — Seizure Without Notice and Opportunity of Hearing Held Illegal. Section 53 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 Does Not Authorize Seizure of Vehicles; Principles of Natural Justice Violated.

The petitioners filed multiple writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging t...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Forest Officers for Non-Compliance of Commissioner's Order Under Disabilities Act. Commissioner Under Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 Not a 'Court' for Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The petitioner, Ku. Asha d/o Tribhuvan Dongare, was appointed as a Forest Guard in the Forest Department of Maharashtra on a post reserved for handica...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Appellants in Forest Plantation Embezzlement Case Due to Insufficient Evidence. Conviction under IPC Sections 409, 467, 468, 465, 471 and Prevention of Corruption Act set aside as prosecution failed to prove entrustment, forgery, or criminal misconduct beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellants, Bhaskar Maruti Thube and Anant Chandrakant Sonavane, were original accused nos. 2 and 3 in Special Case No. 4 of 2003 before the Speci...