Search Results for "Section 48(3)"

411 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 411 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Coal Supply Dispute — No Ground for Interference Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act. Court upholds award of damages for short supply of coal, finding no patent illegality or conflict with public policy.

The petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by Mahaguj Collieries Ltd. (original respondent) challenging an ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court Allows Writ Petition for Maternity Benefits Under Maternity Benefit Act 1961 -- Contractual Doctor Granted Maternity Leave Despite Municipal Corporation's Denial Based on Contractual Status

The High Court of Bombay allowed a writ petition filed by Petitioner, a contractual Assistant Professor at Seth G.S. Medical College and K.E.M. Hospit...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition to Set Aside Arbitral Award Under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — No Patent Illegality Found. Arbitrator's Interpretation of Contractual Clauses Held Plausible and Not Open to Interference.

The petitioner, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, challenged an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the B...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition to Set Aside Arbitral Award Under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — No Grounds for Interference Established. Court Held That the Arbitral Tribunal's Findings Were Based on Evidence and Not Perverse, and the Petition Was Barred by Limitation.

The petitioner, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an arbitral ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Revision Application of Sub-Tenant in Rent Control Matter. Sub-tenant with paid-up capital less than Rs 1 crore held entitled to protection under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 despite tenant's exclusion under Section 3(1)(b).

The case involves a dispute over the applicability of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 to a sub-tenant. The applicant, Frick India Ltd, claimed ...