| First | 1 | 2 | Next | Last |
| Documents Found: 30 |
| Title |
Forum |
Year |
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record-Association and Anr. vs UOI
[LexDoc Id : 489713]
|
SC |
2015 |
Akola Gujrati Samaj vs Akola Municipal Corpn.
[LexDoc Id : 489378]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2015 |
Shoes East Ltd. vs R.K. Singh and CO.
[LexDoc Id : 488682]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2015 |
Vimal Telekrtonix (P) Ltd. vs Tata Telecom Ltd.
Money claim: Bills relied upon to claim entitlement not proved at trial-No evidentiary proof of work executed, Interest claimed at 15 percent per annum without any pleading as to the basis thereof, Interest awarded at 10 percent per annum-With regard to the amounts claimed for extra work relating to two work orders, the high court noted that the bills on which reliance was placed to cla [LexDoc Id : 487866]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2015 |
Balwan vs Pawan Kumar and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 483510]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2015 |
Om Prakash Sharma vs BOI and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 481648]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2015 |
Vinod Kumar Singh and Ors. vs Devraj Singh and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 481095]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2015 |
Ramesh W. Sawant vs Apex Urban Coop. Bank of Maharashtra and Goa Ltd. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 481676]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2015 |
Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar and Ors. vs Jayashree Jayant Salgaonkar and Ors.
Indian Succession Act 1925: Statutory testament not subject to rigour of the Act-Nominations under Companies Act 1956 and Depositories Act 1996 not displacing law of succession-The term 'statutory testament' was not subject to the rigour of Indian Succession Act 1925. It did require witnesses, but not the discipline mandated [LexDoc Id : 480703]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2015 |
Delhi Development Authority vs Gaurav Kukreja
Conversion of suit property: Respondent neither a POA holder nor having any subsisting right in property-Decree for specific performance for sale based on alleged compromise, Respondent not entitled to apply for conversion in view of clause 13 of Conversion Scheme-On the date of filing of writ petition before the high court seeking conversion of suit property from leasehold to freehold, the respondent was neithe [LexDoc Id : 479509]
|
SC |
2015 |
Awas Ireland Ltd. and Ors. and Wilmington Trust Sp Services (Dublin) Ltd. vs Directorate General of Civil Aviation and Anr.
De-registration of aircrafts upon termination of the lease agreements-Rule 30 of the Aircrafts Rules, 1937. Performance of obligation under International Treaty. Issuance of writ of mandamus-The petitioners, entered into lease agreements with Spicejet herein sought de-registration of aircrafts upon termination of these lease agreements as [LexDoc Id : 479957]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2015 |
V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. Ltd. vs M.V. Priyamvada and V.S.Dempo 1 and Co. Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 479954]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2015 |
Prabhu Dayal, Vinod Kumar and Niranjan Baghel vs UOI and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 479647]
|
CAT (Delhi) |
2015 |
Seema Sapra vs General Electric Co. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 478562]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2015 |
Radhey Shyam and Anr. vs Chhabi Nath and Ors.
Jagdish Prasad vs Iqbal Kaur and Ors.
Judicial orders of civil courts not amenable to writ of certiorari-Scope of article 227 different from article 226-Judicial orders of civil courts were not amenable to a writ of certiorari under article 226 of the Constitution of India. A writ of mandamus did not l [LexDoc Id : 478195]
|
SC |
2015 |
Om Aggarwal vs Haryana Financial Corpn. and Ors.
Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act 1979: Jurisdiction of civil court to try suit on merits barred-Question as to whether the demand impugned in suit was legal or not could not be gone into-Once it was held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit on merits, the question as to whether the demand impugned in the suit was le [LexDoc Id : 477853]
|
SC |
2015 |
C.E.C. Ltd. vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 483266]
|
HC (Madhya Pradesh) |
2015 |
Raman Mahindra and Ors. vs Adarsh Bala Sud Adarsh Kumari and Ors.
Will not mandatorily registerable-Registered will not open for public inspection-A will was not mandatorily registerable. Further, the deemed knowledge, which flew from mandatorily registerable documents, could not be attributed to [LexDoc Id : 477988]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2015 |
Forbes Facility Services (P) Ltd. vs G.B. Pant Hospital
[LexDoc Id : 478072]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2015 |
JMG Steel (P) Ltd. vs Bank of India and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 478075]
|
HC (Patna) |
2015 |
Dipak Bhattacharyya vs Banking Ombudsman and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 478070]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2015 |
ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd. vs Indian Bank
[LexDoc Id : 478063]
|
HC (Calcutta) |
2015 |
Maleshappa vs Laxmi Trading Finance and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 478080]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2015 |
Bank of Baroda vs Recovery Officer and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 478066]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2015 |
Krishnakant Goyal and Ors. vs Midex Global (P) Ltd. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 478077]
|
HC (Madhya Pradesh) |
2015 |
| |
| First | 1 | 2 | Next | Last |
| |
