Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the wordpress-seo domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/wollsmil/lawofficeofamitgoyal.com/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114
November 13, 2018 -
Skip to content

Law Office of Amit Goyal
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Practice Areas
    • RERA lawyer
    • Civil Law
    • Criminal Law
    • Family, Divorce and Child Custody
    • Property Disputes
    • Intellectual Property Litigation
    • Service Matters
    • Human Rights
    • Public Interest Litigation
    • OTHER AREAS
  • Contact Us
  • Join Our Team
  • FAQs
  • Blogs

Day: November 13, 2018

Delay in informing insurance company about the loss. Claim liable to be rejected. Full Bench of the Supreme Court ruled on dated 21.08.18. Om Prakash 2017 -SC- differentiated.

Delay in informing insurance company about the loss. Claim liable to be rejected. Full Bench of the Supreme Court ruled on dated 21.08.18. Om Prakash 2017 -SC- differentiated.

Posted on November 13, 2018December 3, 2018 by amit

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1217-1218 OF 2017

Read More
Bail- NDPS- Commercial quantity- Bar of section 37 held to be discriminatory, irrational and unreasonable- and thus not worth defeating the right of the petitioner to get bail- However, application of mind on requirement of ‘satisfaction’ as mentioned in

Bail- NDPS- Commercial quantity- Bar of section 37 held to be discriminatory, irrational and unreasonable- and thus not worth defeating the right of the petitioner to get bail- However, application of mind on requirement of ‘satisfaction’ as mentioned in

Posted on November 13, 2018December 3, 2018 by amit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-30643 of 2018 (O&M)

Read More
Divorce by mutual consent – Waiting Period of 6 months mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory- Supreme Court-

Divorce by mutual consent – Waiting Period of 6 months mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory- Supreme Court-

Posted on November 13, 2018December 3, 2018 by amit

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before:- Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.

Read More

Law Office

AMIT GOYAL

# 353, Sector- 17, Panchkula, Haryana 134109.

Room no-29, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, 160001

+91-95277-00001

advamitgoyal@hotmail.com

Useful Links

  • Civil Law
  • Service Matters
  • Public Interest Litigation
  • Property Disputes
  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Human Rights
  • Family, Divorce and Child Custody
  • Criminal Law

Quick Contact

Review

Send Us Mail

    WordPress Theme : Eightlaw Lite by 8Degree Themes
    Organization LogoLogo Header Menu
    • Home
    • Who We Are
    • Practice Areas
      • RERA lawyer
      • Civil Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Family, Divorce and Child Custody
      • Property Disputes
      • Intellectual Property Litigation
      • Service Matters
      • Human Rights
      • Public Interest Litigation
      • OTHER AREAS
    • Contact Us
    • Join Our Team
    • FAQs
    • Blogs