Advanced Search Results

High Court of Judicature of Bombay Vs. Ms. Manisha Koirala and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Contempt of Court

Acts : Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2

Reported in : 2003BomCR(Cri)1687; 2003CriLJ1634

Advocate for Respondent : V.A. Thorat, Sr. Counsel and ;Satish Maneshinde, Adv., i/b., Mulla & Mulla, for Contemnor 1 and ;Janak Dwarkadas, ;T.N. Subramaniam and ;Anita Castelino, Advs., i/b., Pandya & Co. for Contemno

R.M. Lodha, J.1. This Contempt Petition was registered Suo Motu as per our order dated 13th September 2002.2. We, heard Mr. Goolam Vahanvati learned Advocate General as Amicus Curiae, Mr. V. A. Thorat, learned senior counsel...

Vasant Investment Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Company Law Board and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Company

Acts : Indian Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10, 43-A, 82, 108, 109, 110, 111 and 155; Indian Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5 - Articles 20, 40 and 52; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 101; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 38 and 100; Indian Companies Act, 1913

Reported in : AIR1999Bom207; 1999(1)ALLMR362; 1999(2)BomCR254a; (1999)1BOMLR916; [2000]102CompCas421(Bom)

Advocate for Respondent : Janak Dwarkadas and ;M.R. Sathe, Advs. i/by ;Kanga & Co.

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The legality and correctness of the order dated 22-5-1992 passed by the Company Law Board. Western Region Bench, Bombay is subject matter of challenge in this appeal filed under section 10(f) of Companies...

Shakharamseth Employees Union a Registered and Recognised Union in Pal ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CommercialContract

Acts : Excise Rules - Rule 5.34

Reported in : 2010(1)BomCR239

Advocate for Respondent : Sachin Chandarana, ;Swayam Chopda, ;Pranika Bhatia, Advs., i/b., M.K. Ambalal & Company for Respondent No. 1, ;Janak Dwarkadas, Sr. Adv., ;V.B. Naik and ;Ashish Kamat, Advs., i/b., Kartikeya Assoc

P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Appeal No. 302 of 2008 and Appeal (Lodging) No. 337 of 2008 are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 27th June, 2008 by which the learned single Judge permitted...

Zaheer Khan Vs. Percept D' Mark (India) Private Limited and Anr.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Contract

Acts : Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 27; Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 42

Reported in : AIR2004Bom362; 2004(2)ALLMR369; IV(2004)BC181; (2006)3CompLJ253(Bom)

Advocate for Respondent : G.E. Vahanwati and ;R.M. Kadam and ;V.C. Khatri, Advs., i/b., DESK Legal for Respondent No. 1, ; Janak Dwarkadas and ;Z. Andhyarujina, Advs., i/b., Atul Damle, Adv. for Respondent No. 2

R.M. Lodha, J.1. These two appeals were heard finally at the stage of admission by the consent of the learned Advocate General and the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties and as both the appeals...

Indian Bank, a Banking Corporation Incorporated Under the Banking Corp ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Banking

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Reported in : AIR2003Bom484; 2003(2)ALLMR69; II(2003)BC317; 2003(4)BomCR99

Advocate for Respondent : Janak Dwarkadas, Sr. Adv. and ;Firdosh Pooniwala, Adv., i/b., Little & Co.

C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Rule. Shri. Janak Dwarkadas appears and waivesservice of rule on behalf of the Respondents. In thefacts and circumstances, the matter is taken up forfinal hearing.2. This petition is filed against an order...

Alok Parshuram Jalan, Managing Director of Laqshya Media Private Limit ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Contract

Acts : Right to Information Act (RTI); Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226

Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR477; (2008)110BOMLR3323

Advocate for Respondent : S.G. Aney, Sr. Adv., ;H. Toor, ;Sunil Chavan and ;D.G. Dhanure, Advs., instructed by M.V. Kini & Company for respondent No. 1, ;S.M. Modale, Adv. for respondent No. 2, ;Janak Dwarkadas, Sr. Adv.,

P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for respective respondents waive service of Rule.2. Since common point is involved in all these petitions, with the consent of the learned Counsel, all these petitions were heard together...

Securities Exchange Board Of India Vs. Franklin Templeton Trustees Ser ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE24H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.399 of...

Raghu Hari Dalmia and Others Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of Indi ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Subject : Land Acquisition

Per: N. K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer 1. The appellants herein are the promoters/members of promoter group of OCL India Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office in the State of...

M/s Sion Panvel Tollways Pvt. Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory, ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

A.K. Menon, J. 1. Historically speaking toll roads have been in existence since ancient times, be it across plains or mountain passes, through the middle ages till this age as well. The present petitions arise out...

Maharashtra Power Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Dabhol Power Company

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 260, 262, 286, 397 and 621A - Schedule - Regulations 72 and 75

Reported in : 2004(3)BomCR317; (2004)3CompLJ58(Bom); [2004]52SCL224(Bom)

Advocate for Respondent : P. Chidambaram and ;Manmohan, Advs.

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The Maharashtra Power Development Corporation (MPDC) is the appellant; which we shall call 'the petitioner'. The company petition for diverse reliefs was filed by the petitioner under Sections 397, 402, 403 and 406...