Search Results for "Section 2(f)"

38 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 38 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Kerala Forest Act Case Due to Lack of Evidence and Statutory Interpretation. Sandalwood Oil Not Classified as Forest Produce Under Section 2(f), and Prosecution Failed to Prove Illicit Removal from Reserve Forest as Required Under Section 27(1)(d).

The appeal arose from a criminal conviction under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, involving the appellant, a partner in a firm manufacturing and trading ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against NCLAT Order in Competition Law Case — Locus Standi of Informant Under Section 19(1)(a) of Competition Act, 2002. The Court held that the expression 'any person' in Section 19(1)(a) is wide and does not require the informant to be a consumer or competitor.

The appeal arose from an information filed by Samir Agrawal, an independent law practitioner, before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on 13.0...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows State Appeal, Holds Trustee of Deemed University as Public Servant Under PC Act. Interpretation of 'University' in Section 2(c)(xi) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 includes Deemed Universities.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Gujarat against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court which had discharged the respondent,...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Assistant Director Seeking Retirement at 60 Years Under Kerala University Act. Appellant Not a 'Teacher of the University' as Defined Under Section 2(28) of the Kerala University Act, 1974, and Not Entitled to Extended Retirement Age.

The appellant, P. Gopinathan Pillai, was appointed as Project Officer in the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension (CACEE) of the Univer...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Family Settlement Dispute — Upholds Validity of Pre-Emptive Right Clause. Clause requiring written concurrence of all co-sharers before sale to third party is valid and binding; High Court erred in holding it vague and void.

The dispute arose from a family settlement dated 31.03.1982 among three brothers, including the appellant Tilak Raj Bakshi (plaintiff), the first defe...