Karnataka High Court Hears Batch of Writ Petitions Challenging Land Acquisition for BDA's Peripheral Ring Road. Petitioners Seek Quashing of Preliminary and Final Notifications Issued Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
22 Jul 2014...
Search Results for "Full Bench Decision"
7896 result(s) found
Found 7896 result(s)
High Court
Bombay High Court Holds Revision Under Section 115 CPC Not Maintainable Against Small Causes Court Decree Under Section 26A of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887; Writ Under Article 227 Is Maintainable. The court resolved a conflict between two single judge decisions regarding the remedy available against decrees passed under Section 26A of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.
7 Dec 2016The case involved two writ petitions placed before a larger bench due to a conflict of decisions by single judges of the Bombay High Court regarding t...
- 133
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Central Excise Appeal — No Power to Review Under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 35L of the Act Bars Application of CPC Provisions on Review, Hence Review Petition Not Maintainable.
16 Dec 2010The petitioner, VIP Industries Ltd., filed a review petition before the Bombay High Court seeking review of an earlier order that dismissed its applic...
- 57
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals of Class-IV Employees Terminated Due to Irregular Selection Process. Appointment Based on Interview Without Advertisement Provision Held Invalid; Termination Upheld as Selection Was De Hors the Rules.
7 Mar 2025The case pertains to a batch of appeals by employees appointed as Class-IV employees in Palamu district, Jharkhand, pursuant to an advertisement dated...
- 616
High Court
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.495 OF 2015
8 Mar 2016The judgment under consideration pertains to four appeals arising from a property dispute involving final plot no.267 of Town Planning Scheme IV, Mahi...
- 19
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition of Teacher Against School Tribunal's Order Holding No Jurisdiction Over Unaided School Teachers. School Tribunal Has Jurisdiction Under Section 9 of MEPS Act to Entertain Appeals by Teachers of Unaided Schools Not Receiving Government Aid.
24 Nov 2014The petitioner, a teacher at an unaided school not receiving any aid or grants from the government, filed an appeal before the Additional School Tribu...
- 187
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Preliminary Objection on Locus Standi, Holds That Non-Production of Degree Certificates Does Not Defeat Public Interest Challenge to Bank's Campus Recruitment Policy; Relies on D.C. Wadhwa. Members of the public may challenge executive recruitment practices as unconstitutional under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, without having to prove personal eligibility at the threshold.
1 Apr 2013The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by four individuals challenging the recruitment policy of Central Bank of I...
- 27
High Court
Bombay High Court Upholds Termination of Employee in Education Service Dispute Due to Irregular Promotion. Promotion to Office Superintendent Found Invalid Under Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.
1 Apr 2015The petitioner, Rajendra Waman Rajemane, was appointed as a Junior Clerk in June 1992 at Kiraksal High School, run by respondent No.1, Phaltan Educati...
- 169
High Court
Bombay High Court Adjudicates Competing Claims Over Water Allocation from Upper Wardha Dam and Considers Constitutional Validity of Article 371(2) Governor’s Directives. Court Directs Interim Water Supply for 2012-13 and Frames Issues on Legality of Allocation and Binding Nature of Directives but Final Decision Not Contained in Available Text.
2 Mar 2013The dispute arose from the allocation of 87.60 million cubic meters (MCM) of water from the Upper Wardha Dam in Amravati district, Maharashtra, to a t...
- 25
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Holds Section 13(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Directory — District Forum Can Extend Time for Filing Reply Beyond 45 Days in Exceptional Circumstances. The 30-day period for filing reply commences from receipt of notice by the opposite party.
1 Jan 2020The Supreme Court Constitution Bench addressed two questions referred regarding Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The first quest...
- 178
