Advanced Search Results

Shri Mishrimal Jethmal Oswal Vs. the Municipal Council of Lonavala, Th ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 2(2), 2(9), 99 and 108 - Order 20, Rules 1 to 8 - Order 49, Rule 3; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 537; Constitution of India - Article 226; Indian Penal Code

Reported in : AIR2006Bom190; 2006(3)ALLMR18; 2006(3)BomCR156; 2006(3)MhLj609

Advocate for Respondent : S.G. Aney, Sr. Counsel, ;C.S. Balsara, ;H.N. Vakil and ;D.D. Mehta, Advs., i/b., Mulla & Mulla for Respondent No. 4 and ;S.V. Pitre, Adv. for Respondent No. 1

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The principal question, which arises for determination in this Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is whether the Judgment prepared by a member of the Division Bench and thereafter signed by...

Anz Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Grindlays Bank Employees Union and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 25F; Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948; Bombay Shops and Establishments Rules; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : (2000)IIILLJ629Bom

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai on June 30, 1997 adjudicating two references namely Reference No. CGIT-2/47 of 1993 and Reference No. CGIT-2/26 of 1995 is under...

Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Limited and anr. Vs. the State of ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Banking

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 9 - Order 1, Rule 1; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Sections 2(2), 2(10), 60 and 70; National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development Act, 1981 - Sections 2; Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Sections 18, 24 and 56; Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 - Sections 3 and 5; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 1997(3)BomCR4

Advocate for Respondent : C.J. Sawant and ;N.M. Zambre, Advs. for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, ;D.Y. Chandrachud and ;G.S. Kulkarni, Advs., i/b., Crawford Bayley & Co. for respondent No. 3, ;M.S. Sanghavi, ;S.C. Dharmadhikar

N.D. Vyas, J.1. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the Notification dated 30th December 1995 issued by the State of...

Muktaram Sitaram Shinde Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : 1997(4)BomCR418; 1997CriLJ3458

Advocate for Respondent : C.J. Sawant, Advocate General and ;Mrs. V.S. Dighe, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER1. One Muktaram Sitaram Shinde, a life convict undergoing punishment in the Kolhapur Central Jail, Kalamba, addressed, a letter dated 17th July, 1995 to the learned Chief Justice of this Court, which has been treated as...

Mangesh Janardhan Mohite (President) and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CivilProperty

Acts : Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 - Sections 16, 41, 42, 76, 95B and 184; Greater Bombay Development Control Regulations, 1991 - Regulation 33(7); Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 44

Reported in : 2002(3)ALLMR660; 2002(5)BomCR653

Advocate for Respondent : Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., i/b., Sameer Tendulkar, Adv. in W.P. No. 1288/2001 and in C. S. No. 171/2001 in W.P. No. 1288/2001, for respondent Nos. 13 to 15, ;P. Janardhanan, A.G. and R.M. Sawant, G.P.

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. These two petitions raise important questions of law with respect to some of the provisions of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'MHAD Act') concerning development of acquired...

Mahendra Surana and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Service

Reported in : 1983WLN165

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bhandari

N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. AS identical questions of fact and law are involved in all the above writ petitions as such the same are disposed of by one common judgment.2. In all the above writ petitions validity...

Mohan Ram Vs. State

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Service

Reported in : 1996(1)WLN94

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Singhvi

N.K. Jain, J.1. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 260/93 decided on 13.2.1996 and D.B.C. Special...

S.P. Trivedi (Dr.) Vs. Chandrakala Trivedi (Smt.)

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Acts : Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 8; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 13, Rule 1

Reported in : 1990(1)BomCR715; (1989)91BOMLR449

Advocate for Respondent : S.M. Jhunjhunwala, Adv.

Sharad Manohar, J.1. What the appeal is about This appeal is filed by the petitioner/husband, whose petition for divorce filed against the respondent wife, was dismissed by the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court.Ground...

C.S. Mehta and ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Property

Acts : Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Sections 460Q and 460V

Reported in : AIR1988Bom274; (1988)90BOMLR66; 1988MhLJ219

Advocate for Respondent : K.K. Singhvi and;C.J. Sawant, Advs. i/b., Crawford Bayley & Co. and;S.H. Kapadia, Adv. i/b., Haresh Mehta & Co.

Lentin, J.1. Property vesting in the Bombay Municipal Corporation for the purpose of the BEST Undertaking cannot be disposed of or trifled with to confer a private benefit. Such is the ratio of this judgment.2. Hereunder...

international Airports Authority Employees Union Vs. International Air ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : International Airports Authority of India Act, 1971; Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 - Sections 3; Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulations of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 - Sections 22; ;Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 2002(5)BomCR43; (2002)IIILLJ277Bom

Advocate for Respondent : S.K. Talsania and ;C.U. Singh, Advs.

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the above petitions agreed that the decision in Writ Petition No. 1623 of 1991 will decide the fate of all the above petitions. We...