Search Results for "summons case procedure"

2768 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 2768 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Doctor in Assault Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence and Malafide Intent. Allegations of Assault on Advocate During Court Proceedings Found Baseless as Complainant Was Not a Public Servant Under Section 353 IPC.

The applicant, Dr. Sanjay Andhare, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No.60/2015 ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Doctor in Assault Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence and Malafide Intent. Allegations of Assault on Advocate During Court Proceedings Found Baseless as Incident Occurred Outside Court Premises and Complainant Was Not on Official Duty.

The applicant, Dr. Sanjay Andhare, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No.60/2015 ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Complaints for Dishonour of Cheques Due to Lack of Proper Service of Demand Notice Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Service of notice by speed post or courier must be proved by cogent evidence; mere dispatch is insufficient.

The Bombay High Court disposed of a batch of petitions and applications under Section 482 CrPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Heir to Join Testamentary Suits as Party-Defendant in Will Dispute. Daughter of Predeceased Brother Held to Have Sufficient Interest in Estate of Testator Without Children.

The judgment concerns two Chamber Summonses filed by Jyotsna Rasiklal Maniar, who claims to be the daughter of Prabhudas Chaganlal Mehta, the predecea...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Arbitration Matter — No Error Apparent on Face of Record in Limitation Finding. Court holds that review jurisdiction under Section 114 CPC and Order 47 Rule 1 is limited to errors apparent on record, not re-appreciation of evidence.

The review petition was filed by Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (the original respondent no.1 in Arbitration Appeal No. 6 of 2007) seeking review of ...