Search Results for "Section 256(1)"

20 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 20 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Third Successive Bail Petition in PMLA Case — No Change in Circumstances Found. Petitioner, President of a Cooperative Bank, Alleged to Have Induced Deposits and Laundered Proceeds of Crime Under PMLA, 2002.

The petitioner, Mr. K. Ramakrishna, filed a third successive bail petition under Section 439 of CrPC (read with Section 483 BNNS) in connection with S...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Successive Bail Petition in PMLA Case Due to Lack of Change in Circumstances. Third bail petition rejected as petitioner failed to demonstrate any material change in circumstances after earlier dismissals by High Court and Supreme Court.

The petitioner, Mr. K. Ramakrishna, filed a successive bail petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (filed under Sec...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Land Tribunal Order Granting Tenancy Rights in Land Reforms Case — Tribunal Failed to Consider Evidence and Conduct Proper Inquiry Under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

The petitioner, K.T. Venkatappa (since deceased, represented by his legal representatives), filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Co...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Land Tribunal Order Granting Tenancy Rights to Respondents 3 and 4 Under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 — Petitioner Failed to Prove Ownership or Adverse Possession.

The case involves two writ petitions filed by K.T. Venkatappa (since deceased, represented by his legal representatives) challenging the order dated 1...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Workman's Appeal for Wages Under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Employer's Challenge Dismissed. Court held that workman is entitled to last drawn wages during pendency of proceedings before Labour Court, irrespective of employer's financial hardship.

The case involves two Letters Patent Appeals (LPA 294/2010 and LPA 296/2010) arising from an order of a Single Judge dated 26.10.2010 in Writ Petition...