Advanced Search Results

Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia Vs. Subodh Mody

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Evidence Act - Sections 4, 5, 21, 33, 36, 66, 91, 92, 93 and 123; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 12; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999 - Sections 27; Stamp Act - Sections 36; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 89 - Order 7, Rule 14 - Order 8, Rules 1, 1A, 6G and 8A - Order 12, Rule 2 and 2A - Order 13, Rules 1, 3, 4, 4(1) and 6 - Order 18, Rules 2(4), 4, 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 4(4), 4(5), 4(6), 4(7), 4(8), 17A, 18 and 19 - Order 19, Rules 1 and 2 - Order 26, Rules 4A, 16, 16A, 17 and 18; Constitution of India - Article 21; Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules - Rule 7

Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR352; 2008(6)MhLj886

Advocate for Respondent : N.Y. Gupte, Adv. in W.P. No. 623 of 2005, ;S.G. Aney, Sr. Counsel and ;S.V. Mhatre, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in W.P. No. 1902 of 2005, ;R.M. Patne, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 4 in W.P. No. 1902

Vijay C. Daga, J.1. The question presented in these cases require us to resolve two conflicting lines of precedents on the one hand, as the Court stress that 'it is necessary for Court to decide about...

N.Y. Gupte and anr. Vs. High Court of Judicature at Bombay and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 - Sections 7; Bombay Judicial Services Recruitment Rules, 1956 - Rule 5, 5(1) and 5(6); Constitution of India - Articles 233, 234, 236, 309 and 372

Reported in : 2002(3)BomCR707

Advocate for Respondent : Gulam Vahanvati, Adv. for respondent No. 1, ;A.A. Kumbhakoni, Adv. for respondent No. 28, ;Abhay Oka, Adv. for respondent No. 29 and ;R.M. Sawant, G.P., for respondent No. 53;M.P. Vashi, K.K.V. Kurup

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerning the appointment to the post of Principal Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai. The petition seeks to challenge the High...

ila VipIn Pandya Vs. Smita Ambalal Patel

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Media and CommunicationContempt of Court

Acts : Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12

Reported in : 2000(3)ALLMR27; 2001ALLMR(Cri)663; (2001)1BOMLR393; 2001CriLJ838

Advocate for Respondent : Smita Patel, the Caveatrix

ORDERD. G. Deshpande, J.1. Contemner is Smita Ambalal Patel, who is the defendant in this suit and who is fighting her own cases in person in the Courts, particularly in this Court.2. This matter was on...

ila VipIn Pandya Vs. Smita Ambalal Patel

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : PropertyCivil

Acts : Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12

Reported in : AIR2007SC2404; 2008(3)BomCR482; (SCSuppl)2007(3)CHN164; 2007(6)MhLj618; 2007(7)SCALE331; (2007)6SCC750; 2007AIRSCW4274;

Advocate for Respondent : Smita Ambalal Patel, Party-in-Person

Harjit Singh Bedi, J1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 25th August, 2004 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in notice of motion No. 1207 of 2004 in...

Abdul Kayum Mahomed HooseIn Pitalvala Vs. Ebrahim Abbasbhai Harianival ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - Sections 41, 46 and 47

Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR1223

Advocate for Respondent : S.J. Sorabji, Adv. i/b., Jehangirand Seervai Attorneys

Gokhale, J. (1) This is an appeal by the original defendant against a decree passed in respondent's favour by the Bombay City Civil Court in Suit No. 1106 of 1956. The suit came to be filed...

Laxmidas N. Madhvani Vs. Madhvani Private Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR308

R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated September 24, 1979 passed by a Judge of the City Civil Court at Bombay returning the plaint in Suit No. 6769 of 1978. The suit...

Devi Ramchand Waswani Vs. S.V. Bastikar

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 144 - Order 9, Rule 13

Reported in : AIR1968Bom57; (1967)69BOMLR121; ILR1967Bom945; 1967MhLJ326

Advocate for Respondent : D.S. Parikh, ;R.P. Vyas and ;V.N. Golwala, Advs. (In No. 849 of 1966) and ;A.N. Mirchandani, Adv.

(1) These two matters arise out of an order passed by the Judge of the City Civil Court upon a Notice of Motion being taken out before him to set aside an ex parte decree. The...

Manmohan Muttappa Attavar, Vs. Harendra Sakarlal Parikh,

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 15 to 20 - Order 7, Rule 11; Court Fees Act - Sections 7; Suits Valuation Act- Sections 9

Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR98; 2003(6)BomCR423

Advocate for Respondent : D.S. Parikh, Adv., i/b., S.S. Balsari, Adv.

R.G. Deshpande, J.1. The order dated September 18, 1996 passed in Short Cause Suit No. 4419 of 1993 by the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, city Civil Court, Bombay is the subject matter of challenge in this...

Association of Commerce House Block Owners Ltd. Vs. Vishandas Samaldas ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 - Sections 4, 7 and 7(1); Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 56; Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 23 to 26, 28 to 31 and 32

Reported in : (1981)83BOMLR339

Advocate for Respondent : D.S. Parikh and ;Sheela S. Balsara, Advs. for respondent No. 1

M.N. Chandurkar, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal filed by defendant No. 1 arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 31st October, 1964 in respect of certain property, the identity of which...

Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited Vs. Govindbhai Appaji Bhatte and o ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : PropertyLimitation

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 21, Rules 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101; Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule I - Article 65; Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Sections 13; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 61; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 23, Rule 3; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 21, Rules 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101

Reported in : 1994(1)BomCR211

Advocate for Respondent : D.S. Parikh, ;P.K. Samdani and ;G.S. Manasawala, Advs. for the respondent No. 13

M.L.pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by original decree holder in Suit No. 349 of 1970 to challenge legality of judgment dated September 8, 1989 passed by learned Single Judge on Chamber Summons No. 245...