admin_nupur

M/s. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. Vs. Union of India [Arbitration Petition No. 51 of 2022] Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd.2 2. Facts: The Ministry of Home Affairs (Procurement Division)3 floated a […]

Trespasser cannot claim rights in property only on the ground that he raised construction after sanction of map. Court in the case of Mr. G.S.J. Shapoorjee v. Allahabad Development Authority & Ors., 2016 11 ADJ 524 has held as under:- Mere fact that map was sanctioned and thereafter constructions were raised, would make no difference

Central GST Delhi – III Vs. Delhi International Airport Ltd. [Civil Appeal No(s). 8996 of 2019] [Civil Appeal No. 2465 of 2020] [Civil Appeal No(s). 4751-4753 of 2021] S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. In all these appeals, orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal1 (hereafter “CESTAT”) are impugned by the service tax

• Section 311 CRPC Power to summon Section 311 provides that the Court may summon any person as a witness or to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness and Recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined This power can be exercised at any stage of any inquiry,

मात्र इसलिए कि एक आरोपी को आईपीसी की धारा 498-ए के अपराध के तहत दोषी पाया जाता है और मृत्यु विवाह के सात वर्षों की अवधि के भीतर हुई है, आरोपी को साक्ष्य अधिनियम की धारा 113 ए के अन्तर्गत उपधारणा करके आईपीसी की धारा 306 के तहत दंडनीय अपराध के लिए स्वतः दोषी नहीं

Ghanshyam Vs. Yogendra Rathi [Civil Appeal Nos. 7527-7528 of 2012] Pankaj Mithal, J. 1. Heard Shri Rajul Shrivastav, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant. None appeared for the plaintiffrespondent despite service. 2. After having lost from all the three courts below, the defendant to the suit has preferred this appeal. 3. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for eviction of