Search Results for "Rule 102"

5 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 5 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Third-Party Claim in Execution Proceedings -- Appellant Fails to Remove Property Attachment for Arbitral Award Recovery -- Mother of Company Director Cannot Defeat Creditor's Rights as Post-Award Purchaser

The Supreme Court upheld the attachment of property in execution of an arbitral award, rejecting the third-party claim by Appellant who had purchased ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses State's Appeal in Leave Encashment Case for Re-employed Government Servant. Re-employed Employee Entitled to Second Leave Encashment Under Rule 36 of Sikkim Government Services (Leave) Rules, 1982, as Rule 32 Creates Legal Fiction Treating Re-employment as Fresh Service Entry.

The dispute originated from the State of Sikkim's appeal against High Court orders that granted leave encashment benefits to a re-employed government ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Decree for Specific Performance, Directs Execution of Possession in Favor of Appellants. Collusion Between Vendors and Respondents to Frustrate Decree Cannot Defeat the Fruits of Justice

Specific Performance and Possession – The Supreme Court held that the appellants were entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement and po...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Union of India's Appeal Against Sentence Modification in Court-Martial Case. General Court Martial Composition Violated Army Rules, 1954, Rule 40(2) and Rule 102, but Armed Forces Tribunal's Sentencing Discretion Under Section 71(e) of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 Upheld.

The dispute arose from disciplinary proceedings against a retired Lieutenant General of the Indian Army, initiated after an anonymous complaint in 200...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Execution Proceedings — Possessory Title Not Required for Restoration Under Order XXI Rules 98-100 CPC. High Court erred in ordering restoration of possession without determining whether respondent had any right to possession under Order XXI Rules 98-100 CPC.

The Supreme Court considered an appeal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had allowed the appeal of the respondent (Lt. Col. Nahar ...