Search Results for "fraudulent agreement"

780 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 780 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitrator's Order on Non-Arbitrability. Disputes Relating to Termination for Convenience and Non-Compete Obligations Held Not Arbitrable Under Section 16 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The petitioner, Capalpha Trade Private Limited, filed a commercial arbitration petition under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in Franchise Dispute: Breach of Contract Not Cheating Without Fraudulent Intent. Essential Ingredients of Sections 420 and 406 IPC Not Made Out as Dispute is Purely Civil in Nature.

The applicants, directors of AN Retail Ventures Private Limited (ANR), sought quashing of FIR No.134/2021 registered at Osmanpura Police Station, Aura...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows State's Appeal, Upholds Rejection of Bid for Suppression of Material Facts in Public Tender. Bidder's Failure to Disclose FIR and Charge Sheet for Bridge Collapse Constitutes Fraudulent Practice Under N.I.T. Clauses.

The Supreme Court of India heard appeals by the State of Madhya Pradesh against a High Court judgment that had set aside the rejection of U.P. State B...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Plaintiff Failed to Prove Readiness and Willingness. Agreement to Sell Not Proved as Genuine and Enforceable Due to Lack of Credible Evidence and Discrepancies in Pleadings.

The appellant, Harish, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 05.12.2008 allegedly executed by the respondents in his fav...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Oral Agreement Not Proved. Plaintiff failed to establish oral agreement, payment of consideration, and suit was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The appellants (original defendant nos. 2 to 4) challenged the judgment and decree dated 18/02/2014 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mum...