High Court of Karnataka Writ Petition (PIL) – Cause Title Only. No substantive judgment text provided.
21 Jun 2016...
Search Results for "sufficient reasons"
11583 result(s) found
Found 11583 result(s)
High Court
- 48
High Court
- 55
High Court
- 69
High Court
- 72
High Court
Karnataka High Court Examines Petition Seeking Quashment of CBI FIR and Charge Sheet for Corruption Offences. The Court Considers Legality of Telephone Interception under Indian Telegraph Act and Applicability of Section 17A Prevention of Corruption Act.
22 Apr 2024This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner, a public servant...
- 36
High Court
High Court Considers Extension of Superannuation Pension to Teachers in Private Unaided Ayurvedic and Social Work Colleges; Earlier Finding of Discrimination Under Constitution Upheld by Apex Court Being Enforced. Petitioners Seek Implementation of 1983 Pension Scheme Following Supreme Court's Direction for Phased Extension.
10 Jun 2013Three writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, seeking superannuation pension for teaching and non-teach...
- 41
High Court
Petitioner Challenges NCLT Order Admitted Under Section 7 IBC on Ground of Non-Pronouncement and Violation of NCLT Rules. High Court of Bombay Issues Rule and Hears Petition Alleging Order Non-Est for Lack of Pronouncement in Open Court.
29 Nov 2019Not mentioned - judgment text incomplete...
- 26
High Court
Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case Due to DNA Evidence Inconsistency and Unreliable Testimony. Conviction under Section 376(2)(f)(l) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act set aside as DNA report excluded semen and blood of accused, and victim's testimony was tutored.
23 Jul 2024The appellant, Bhaiyya S/o Vijay Chakre, was convicted by the Special Judge, Achalpur, for offences under Section 376(2)(f)(l) of the Indian Penal Cod...
- 847
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Arbitral Award Challenge as Barred by Limitation — Section 4 of Limitation Act Does Not Extend 30-Day Condonable Period Under Section 34(3) of Arbitration Act When It Expires During Court Vacation. The Court held that Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies only to the 3-month prescribed period, not to the 30-day condonable period under the proviso to Section 34(3), and Section 10 of the General Clauses Act is inapplicable.
1 Jan 2025The case involves an appeal by My Preferred Trans Formation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and another against M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. arising fro...
- 1084
