Search Results for "Section 65(2) proviso"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Eschew Proof Affidavit in Probate Proceedings. ...
Supreme Court Allows Agriculturists' Appeal for Enhanced Compensation; Condones ...

Search Results for "Section 65(2) proviso"

79 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 79 result(s)

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Adjudicates Batch of Appeals Involving Transit Fee Levied by Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh Under Indian Forest Act, 1927. Appeals Arise from Differing High Court Decisions on Validity of Transit Rules Framed Under Section 41.

1 Aug 2026

The Supreme Court addressed a batch of cases concerning the levy of transit fee on forest produce. The matter involved three States: Uttar Pradesh, Ut...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Interprets Pre-Deposit Requirement Under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act in Appeals by Borrowers and Secured Creditors. The court held that pre-deposit is mandatory, computed based on the amount claimed in the notice under Section 13(2), excluding future interest, with adjustments for recoveries after filing the petition under Section 17.

23 Apr 2025

The Supreme Court of India, in a group of appeals, addressed the interpretation of Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial As...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Application to Condone Delay in Filing Written Statement in Commercial Suit — Mandatory 120-Day Limit Under Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Applies. Court holds that the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC as amended by Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is a special provision for commercial disputes and overrides the Bombay High Court Original Side Rules, 1980.

10 Jun 2024

The case involves a Notice of Motion filed by the defendants (applicants) in a commercial suit before the Bombay High Court, seeking to quash the orde...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Default Bail in UAPA Case: Exclusive Jurisdiction of Special Court for Extension of Investigation Period. The right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC accrues upon expiry of 90 days and is not defeated by subsequent filing of charge sheet if application was made before filing.

30 Oct 2020

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Bikramjit Singh, who was arrested in connection with a grenade attack at a Nirankari Bhawan in Amritsar on 18....

High Court

Bombay High Court Pronounces Judgment in Batch of Writ Petitions Challenging Constitutional Validity of Section 295 Amendment and Demand for Unearned Income Under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Lead Petition Involved Assignment of Leasehold Rights and a Demand of Over Rs. 94 Crores, With the Petitioners Alleging the Retrospective Amendment Violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

3 May 2018

The judgment pertained to a batch of four writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Ordinary O...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Delay Condonation Application in Company Appeal — Limitation Period Under Section 10F of Companies Act, 1956 Runs from Date of Knowledge of Order, Not from Receipt of Certified Copy. The court held that the right to receive a certified copy under Regulation 29(4) of CLB Regulations does not postpone the commencement of limitation, and the appeal filed beyond 120 days from the date of knowledge is barred.

11 Mar 2014

This judgment concerns a company application filed by Jagdish Lal Gupta, the appellant in an appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, seek...

High Court

Karnataka High Court Considers Writ Petitions Filed by Employees of Survey Sections in Various Tahsildar Offices. Relief Sought and Final Decision Not Specified in Available Text.

26 Feb 2014

...

High Court

Bombay High Court Clarifies Maintainability of Revision Under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — Interlocutory Procedural Orders Not Revisable. Division Bench Holds That Revision Under Section 34(4) is Limited to Orders Affecting Rights or Liabilities of Parties and Does Not Extend to Purely Procedural Orders Passed Under CPC.

21 Jan 2013

The Bombay High Court was seized of three writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging orders passed by the Court of Small Causes ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Considers Validity of Transit Fee Levy on Forest Produce Under Section 41 of Indian Forest Act, 1927. High Court Judgments on Transit Fee Rules Challenged in Batch of Appeals from Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh.

1 Jan 1970

This batch of cases before the Supreme Court arose from multiple writ petitions challenging the levy of transit fee on forest produce imposed by the S...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Recusal Plea in Habeas Corpus Challenge to Contempt Detention; Holds Embarrassment and Alleged Error Insufficient for Judicial Withdrawal. Non-compliance of court's directions in contempt proceedings led to detention under Articles 129 and 142, and the bench ruled that allegations of bias were unfounded and did not necessitate recusal.

1 Jan 1970

The Supreme Court was seized of a criminal writ petition filed by Subrata Roy Sahara challenging an order dated 04.03.2014 passed by the same bench in...

1 2 3

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