The petitioner appeared in the Maharashtra State Service (Main), Examination, 1990, which was held for the filling up of 22 posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police, Class-I. In his application, the Petitioner gave hi..
The Petitioners herein filed Company Petition No.69 of 2006 before the Additional Principal Bench of the Company Law Board at Chennai under sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging mismanagement and oppression by the major..
The Respondent No.1 is a Public Limited Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of two wheelers, scooters and motorcycles, having its registered office at Panaki Industrial Area in Kanpur, U.P. The Company obtained power load from the Kanpur Elec..
Respondent No.1 is running a spinning mill and is a consumer of electricity supplied by appellant No.1. In 1994, a notice was issued to respondent No.1 to pay the dues of electricity amounting to Rs.19,15,929.20. After paying a sum of Rs.3,02,668/-, ..
This is a suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution of India by the State of Orissa (plaintiff) against the State of Andhra Pradesh (defendant) for a declaration that the Borra Group of villages, also referred to as ‘Borra Mutha’, form part of..
The respondents filed counter affidavit in opposition to the writ petition and pointed out that firearms fall under the restricted category of Exim Policy (1997-2002) and as such import of firearms is not permitted except against an import licence is..
The respondent was appointed as conductor by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation – (for short, ‘appellants’) on October 11, 1982. On January 17, 1983, while the respondent was on duty on Badi Chopad – Amer route, a surprise inspection was ..
Munnawar & Ors. Versus State of U.P. etc...
On 23.12.1993, the then Prime Minister announced the MPLAD Scheme. This scheme was formulated for enabling the Members of Parliament to identify small works of capital nature based on locally felt needs in their constituencies. The objective, as seen..
By this judgment and order, we propose to dispose of the two appeals filed by the fourteen accused persons who have been convicted and sentenced by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar by judgment and order dated 10.09.2004 which has ..
Challenge in this appeal is to the Division Bench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court wherein the appeal filed by respondent herein, namely, Bibhas Chandra Das was allowed holding that no probate could be granted in favour of the present appellant, n..
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court setting aside the acquittal of the appellants herein under Section 376 IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine o..
This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, raising a question of public importance involving the interpretation of Article 156 of the Constitution, has been referred to the Constitution Bench, by a two Judge Bench of this Court..
In the present case, the trial court had acquitted the appellant-accused in a case related to the dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Hereinafter ‘Act’]. This finding of acquittal had been made by the Addl..
In the present case, the trial court had acquitted the appellant-accused in a case related to the dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Hereinafter ‘Act’]. This finding of acquittal had been made by the Addl..
On a first flush, after bare perusal of the impugned order passed in Revenue Tax Appeal No. 1904 of 2005, decided on 8.8.2006 by Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, we thought of remanding the matter for a fresh decision on meri..
This appeal filed for setting aside order dated 21.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court in Writ Petition No.21820 of 2008 whereby he declined to interfere with the direction given by Sub Judge, Palakkad (hereinafter describe..
. The Appellant had been applying for Higher Secondary courses ever since 1996. However, its applications were not considered by the respondents in light of the policy that the Government was allowing only those applicants who already had existing Hi..
The material facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs, claiming to be the landlords/owners of the premises bearing Flat No.205, (2nd Floor), Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi-110001 having area of 581 sq. ft., (super ar..
Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 - Interpretation of s. 43 - Suit for declaration pending - Respondent purchased the property - Doctrine of lis pendens - High Court held that s. 43 would applicable..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
