Search Results for "re-argument"

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...
Bombay High Court at Goa Dismisses Review Petition in Partition Suit Impleadment...
Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witn...

Search Results for "re-argument"

4 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 4 result(s)

High Court

Madras High Court Dismisses Review Petitions Filed by Municipal Corporation for Lack of Error Apparent. Scope of review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue the merits of the case.

24 Jun 2026

The Coimbatore Municipal Corporation filed three review applications (Review Application Nos.83, 84 & 85 of 2026) under Article 226 of the Constitutio...

High Court

Madras High Court Dismisses Review Application for Lack of Error Apparent on Record. Review Applicant Attempted to Re-argue Merits, Which Is Impermissible Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

11 Mar 2026

The present review application was filed by A.Selva Sharma seeking to review the order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the Madras High Court in W.A.No.1656...

High Court

High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Allows Correction of Clerical Error in MACT Judgment — Mistake in Identifying Driver as Owner of Vehicle. Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Tribunal's refusal to correct error set aside; liability shifted to insurance company.

3 Aug 2019

The petitioners, original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in a Motor Accident Claim Petition, challenged an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated ...

High Court

High Court of Bombay Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Insurance Dispute — Floater Policy Interpretation and Burden of Proof Upheld. The court held that the arbitrator's finding that the policy was not a floater policy and that the insured failed to prove loss was not patently illegal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

27 Nov 2012

The petitioner, M/s. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the respondent, National Insurance Company Ltd...

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