Advanced Search Results
Madhavdas Dwarkadas Vs. Jugal Kishore Saraf
Mumbai
Apr-29-1982
TenancyCivil
Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - Sections 41 and 42-A; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 115
AIR1983Bom20
M.U. Pandey, Adv.
ORDER1. The present petitioner is filed by the petitioner who is the owner of the suit premises which consist of a building at Walkeshwar. The application for defendants ejectment filed under Section 41 of the Presidency...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskBharat S. Shah and ors. Vs. Rajkumar Jugalkishore Saraf
Mumbai
Aug-27-2007
Contempt of Court
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2, 17, 19 and 20; Land Acquisition Act; Constitution of India - Article 136
2008(2)ALLMR231; 2008(1)MhLj465
M.U. Pandey, Adv.
J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.The appellants are the original respondents in Contempt Petition No. 230 of 2005 who have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the decision of the learned single...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskNeena Sudarshan Wadia (Smt.) Vs. Venus Enterprises
Mumbai
Feb-09-1983
Civil
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer), Act, 1963 - Sections 4, 7 and 7(1); Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17
1984(2)BomCR505
M.G. Kikla, Adv. In A.O. No. 575 of 1982 and ;M.U. Pandey, Adv. In A.O. No. 875 of 1982
R.A. Aggarwal, J.1. Both these appeals involve chiefly the interpretation of the provisions of section 7(1)(i) and (ii) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Manherlal C. Shah and anr. Vs. Hatimbhai Abbasbhai Saifee
Mumbai
Jan-29-2003
CriminalBanking
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 92
2004(2)ALLMR602; III(2004)BC575
R.M. Pandey, Adv., i/b., M.U. Pandey
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The plaintiff have filed this suit on the basis of document at Exhs. 'A' and 'B' both dated 9th December, 1999. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant is the drawer of these documents...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskGajanan Narayan Malik and Another Vs. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. and ...
Mumbai
Jul-09-1998
Property
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 39 - Rules 1 and 2; Urban Land Ceiling Act; Income Tax Act, 1961
1999(2)BomCR118
M.U. Pandey, Adv.
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Admit.2. Respondents waive service. By consent, heard forthwith.3. The appellants who are the owners of the land are the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 1731 of 1997 filed by the respondents...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskSatyanarayan Malpani Vs. Sushiladevi S. Malpani and ors.
Mumbai
Jan-24-2002
Civil
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 11 and 151
2002(3)ALLMR476; 2002(3)BomCR587
M.U. Pandey, Adv. for defendant No. 1, ;Kevic Setalwad and ;Vimla Shah, Advs., i/b., Vimla and Co. for defendant No. 2, ;G.R. Kinkhabwale, Adv., i/b., Anil Desai and Co. for defendant No. 3
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the defendant No. 2 praying that the operative part of the order passed by Mr. S.S. Nijjar, J. in the Notice of Motion No. 557...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›