Advanced Search Results

Association of Engineering Workers Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10(1) and 12(5)

Reported in : (1994)IIILLJ97Bom

Advocate for Respondent : C.U. Bora, Adv. for R 1 and 2 and ;M.H. Doshi, Adv. for R3

A.V. Savant, J. 1. This petition by the Association of Engineering Workers of the third respondent-employer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to challenge the letter/order dated 12th October, 1988 issued by the...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Laxman Dashrath Garad

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1970)72BOMLR281

Abhyankar, J.1. The two appellants: (i) Laxman Dashrath Garad, aged 30 years, and (ii) his younger brother Mohan Dashrath Garad, aged 25 years, have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Osmanabad for having killed their...

Jyoti Nikul Jariwala and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 - Sections 29; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 226 and 265; Bombay Stamp Act, 1958; Court-fees Act, 1870; Marriage Act

Reported in : AIR1988Bom123; 1988(1)BomCR1; 1988MhLJ96

Advocate for Respondent : C.U. Bora,;B.E. Patil,;N.H. Seervai,;P.R. Diwan and;Nita Kapadia, Advs.,;i/b., Gagrat and Co., for;Incorporated Law Society of Bombay

ORDER1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, assail the constitutional vires of Item 10 of Schedule I being an appendage to the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959.2. To understand the question that arises for determination...

Datwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Sections 33(1)

Reported in : 1988(2)BomCR95

Advocate for Respondent : C.U. Bora, Adv.

S.P. Kurdukar. J.1. The petitioners by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek to challenge the two orders (i) dated 9-4-1985 (Ex. D) and dated 24-6-1986 (Ex. N.). Both these orders...

Bakhtawar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Tahsildar and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Sections 168(2)

Reported in : 1991(3)BomCR199

Advocate for Respondent : C.U. Bora, Adv. for respondents 1 and 2

S.M. Daud, J.1. The short point arising for determination in this writ petition is whether petitioners who are the inferior holders of alienated land could be proceeded against for arrears of land revenue under the Maharashtra...

The Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Other Taxes

Acts : Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Sections 192, 194A, 195, 195(1A), 292; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226; Companies Act, 1956; Customs Act, 1962 ; Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 - Rule 18(3); Bombay Provincial Corporation Act, 1949 - Sections 147

Reported in : AIR1992Bom412; 1992(2)BomCR248

Advocate for Respondent : C.U. Bora, ;P.P. Bharucha, ;Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and ;M.B. Rao, Advs.

ORDERPendse, J.1. The Petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act and runs its factory at Jokegram, Thane. The Company claims to be one of the largest units manufacturing worsted woollen...

Hanuman Vitamins Foods Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : ConstitutionCommercial

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 226, 246, 248, 254 and 268; Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 - Sections 2(1), 17, 24 ,31, 47(1), 53 and 54; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 - Sections 29 and 30; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 60; Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17; Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 - Sections 29 and 30; Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act, 1963 - Sections 4

Reported in : AIR1990Bom204; 1989(2)BomCR460; (1989)91BOMLR398; 1989MhLJ935

Advocate for Respondent : K.K. Singhvi and;C.U.Bora, Adv.

ORDERKenia, J.1. This petition raises a question as to the levy of stamp duty under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, on a document purporting to be an instrument of transfer of shares in a Co-operative Society...

Firozali Abdulkarim Jivani, and Another Vs. the Union of India and Oth ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Trusts and SocietiesElection

Acts : Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 - Sections 4(2), 34, 35(3), 36, 37, 39, 40, 74 to 76, 87 and 90(1); Constitution of India - Article 226; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Sections 9(1), 17, 73FF(2), 78(1), 91, 144E and T; Multi-State Co-operative Societies (Registration, Membership, Direction and Management, Settlement of Disputes, Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1985

Reported in : AIR1992Bom179; (1991)93BOMLR662; 1992(1)MhLj1

Advocate for Respondent : N.N. Morje, ;C.U. Bora, ;R.A. Dada, ;Prashant Naik and ;R.M. Kadam, Advs., i/b. ;M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associates and ;Dr. B.R. Naik, Adv., i/b. ;M/s. Mahimtura & Co.

ORDERMrs. Sujata Manohar, J. 1. The petitioners are members and shareholders of the Development Co-operative Bank Limited, the 6th respondent, which is a Multi-State Co-operative Society registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. The petitioners...

Khurshed Amangool Khan Vs. P.D. Palnitkar and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - Sections 4 and 22(1)

Reported in : AIR1991Bom362; 1991(3)BomCR15; 1991(1)MhLj490

Advocate for Respondent : C.U. Bora, Adv.

ORDER1. These six petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution question the correctness of an order passed under Section 22, affirmed in appeal under Section 23, both of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment)...

Dr. Vijay Krishnarao Kedare Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : AIR1989Bom148; [1989(58)FLR608]; 1989MhLJ36

Advocate for Respondent : C.U. Bora,;K.J. Presswala and P.M. Patel, Advs.

ORDER1. This petition is to obtain petitioner's appointment as a Registrar in Obstetrics and Gynaecology after quashing that made in favour of Respondent 3.2. Grant Medical College and the J. J. Group of Hospitals are State...