Search Results for "Rule 34(4)"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Claimant in Motor Accident Case — Functional Di...
Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Forgery Case Due to Long Pendency and No Crim...
Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Concurrent Findi...
High Court of Bombay at Bombay Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Acc...

Search Results for "Rule 34(4)"

167 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 167 result(s)

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Decree for Specific Performance, Directs Execution of Possession in Favor of Appellants. Collusion Between Vendors and Respondents to Frustrate Decree Cannot Defeat the Fruits of Justice

6 Mar 2025

Specific Performance and Possession – The Supreme Court held that the appellants were entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement and po...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Holds Order VIII Rule 6A CPC Mandatory for Filing Counterclaim Before Written Statement. Counterclaim Filed After Written Statement Is Not Permissible as Provision Imposes Embargo on Belated Filing.

19 Nov 2019

The Supreme Court of India, in a three-judge bench, addressed a reference regarding the interpretation of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Proc...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Revenue's Appeal in CENVAT Credit Dispute — Holds That Credit on Inputs Used in Manufacture of Exempted Goods Is Not Permissible Under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. The Court Resolves Conflict Between Earlier Decisions by Distinguishing MODVAT and CENVAT Schemes, Denying Credit for LSHS Used as Fuel in Producing Exempted Fertilizer.

3 Dec 2019

The case involves a reference to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court to resolve an apparent conflict between two decisions: Commissioner of Central Ex...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Application for Recalling Witness in Election Petition — No Power to Recall Witness After Cross-Examination Under CPC and Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court held that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC does not permit recall of a witness for further cross-examination after discharge, and inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to circumvent specific provisions.

30 Nov -0001

The case arises from an election petition filed by Ravindra Ramji Mundhe (petitioner) challenging the election of Avadhoot Anil Tatkare (respondent No...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Allows Amendment of Plaint in Civil Suit — Due Diligence Test Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC Not Applicable Before Commencement of Trial. Trial Court Erred in Rejecting Amendment Application on Ground of Lack of Due Diligence When Trial Had Not Commenced.

16 Dec 2025

The petitioners, plaintiffs in a civil suit (O.S. No. 188/2015) pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund, filed an application (IA ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes NAA Order Against McDonald's Franchisee in GST Anti-Profiteering Case — Failure to Consider Input Tax Credit Benefit and Lack of Proper Investigation. The court held that the National Anti-Profiteering Authority must consider the benefit of input tax credit and conduct a proper investigation before directing deposit of profiteered amount under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

1 Oct 2019

The petitioner, Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt. Ltd., operates McDonald's restaurants in Western and Southern India. After the GST rate on restaurant serv...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Application for Rejection of Plaint in Suit for Specific Performance and Injunction — Held that Plaint Discloses Cause of Action and is Not Barred by Limitation. The court held that the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as the suit is within limitation and discloses a cause of action.

16 Jul 2016

The case involves a Notice of Motion filed by Defendant No. 11, Lily Realty Private Limited, in a suit for specific performance and injunction. The pl...

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 2020

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench addressed two questions referred regarding Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The first quest...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Appointment of Receiver in Execution Under Section 51(d) CPC Despite Property Being Outside Territorial Jurisdiction. Section 39(4) CPC Does Not Bar Appointment of Receiver as It Is an Independent Mode of Execution.

24 Aug 2018

The case involves a Chamber Summons filed by the decree-holders, Vistra ITCL (India) Limited and IIRF Holdings III Limited, in an execution applicatio...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Furlough Grant to Convict in Rape Case Due to Threat to Witnesses and Public Order. Furlough is not an absolute right but subject to conditions under the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959, and must consider witness safety and public peace, as the convict had a criminal network and history of witness intimidation.

20 Oct 2021

The appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 24 June 2021, which directed the release of the respondent on furlough. The respon...

1 2 3

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)