technology — India Other Cases
35 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 2 · 35 total
Rubicon Inspection Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Paras Railtech Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s. Rubicon Inspection Systems Pvt. Ltd., filed a commercial suit seeking recovery of Rs. 7,78,355/- from the defendant, M/s. Paras Railtech Pvt. Ltd., for part work allegedly executed under a work order dated 15.12.2020 relating to desilting operations on sewer lines and storm drains at Najafgarh, Delhi (DMRC Contract CC 126A). The defendant contended that the plaintiff abandoned the work without valid cause, that the invoice was forged with inflated rates, and that the agreed 20% discount was not applied. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove actual execution, measurement, and certification of the work, and that the invoice did not match the rates specified in the work order, dismissing the suit.
Zarina Dada And 3 Ors v.The State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the heirs of Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, challenging the legality of a land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986, a corrigendum thereto dated 5 April 2017, and a subsequent notice dated 27 April 2017 under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning their land at Kurla, Mumbai. The court found that the acquisition process failed to comply with the mandatory statutory requirements, rendering the award and corrigendum void. The court directed the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation under the LA Act, 1894, and publish a fresh award within three months.
K.D. Trivedi Krishna Dutt Trivedi v.Central Bureau of Investigation
This criminal appeal was filed by K.D. Trivedi Krishna Dutt Trivedi challenging his conviction and five-year sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption (Central), Lucknow in Case No. 12 of 1998 under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The primary issue before the Court was procedural—whether the trial court was obligated to send its original record rather than merely a certified copy, as required by Rule 9 of Chapter XVIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The Court directed the trial court to forward its original record and listed the appeal for hearing on 17.08.2026.
Zarina Dada And 3 Ors v.The State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the legality of a land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986 and a corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) with respect to land at Kurla, Mumbai, originally notified for acquisition for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road. The petitioners, heirs of the original landowner Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, contended that their land was not included in the original 1986 award, and the SLAO's attempt to include it through a corrigendum after 31 years was without legal authority. The Bombay High Court held the award, corrigendum, and consequential notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to be illegal and void, directing the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation under the LA Act, 1894 within three months.
Zarina Dada And Others v.The State of Maharashtra And Others
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the legality of a land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986 and a corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 issued after 31 years, which sought to include the petitioners' land at Kurla, Mumbai within the purview of the original award for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road. The petitioners, heirs of the original landowner Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, contended that the corrigendum was without legal authority and that the mandatory procedural requirements under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were not complied with. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition, declaring the award, corrigendum, and consequential notice under Section 12(2) as illegal and void, and directed the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation at current market value within three months.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.