Advanced Search Results

Ramdil Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Videcon International Ltd. and ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 2(9) and 24; Government of India Act - Sections 107

Reported in : 2000(2)ALLMR434; 2000(1)BomCR54

Advocate for Respondent : R.D. Soni, Adv.

ORDERDr. B.P. SARAF, J.1. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants seek to challenge the order dated 27th January 1999 of the learned Single Judge rejecting their application for transfer of...

Vinod Ramchandra Gosalka Vs. Sunil Dattatray Tatkare and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Election

Acts : Representation of People's Act, 1951 - Sections 81(3), 83(1), 86(1) and 86(3)

Reported in : 1997(3)BomCR110

Advocate for Respondent : V.R. Manohar, ;R.S. Desai, ;S.R. Borulkar, ;V.G. Kotwal, ;R.D. Soni, ;J.K. Hegde, ;R.D. Soni and ;D.F. Sharma, Advs.

R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. These are four Election Petitions filed by the respective petitioners challenging the election of returned candidates. In all these cases the respective respondents have taken a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the...

Pralhad Lokram Dodeja and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Property

Acts : Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 4, 6, 9, 23, 23(1), 26, 26(1), 37, 50, 125, 126, 126(2) and (3), 127, 128 and 128(1) and (3); Constitution of India - Articles 226; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 5-A (1) and (2), 6, 11-A, 4(1), 12(1) and (2), 16, 17, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 48 and 48(1) and (2); Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 - Sections 2(1), 3 and 62; Bangalore Development Act, 1976; Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955 - Sections 81 and 84; Karnataka Act, 1972; Calcutta Act, 1911; Uttar Pradesh Act, 1965; General Clauses Act - Sections 21; Land Acquisition (Company) Rules, 1963 - Rules 3 and 4; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 6, Rule 15 (2) - Order 19

Reported in : 2001(4)BomCR35; (2001)3BOMLR65

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. M.L. Patil, Adv., i/b ;Mr. R.A. Shaikh, ;Mr. C.J. Sawant, Special Counsel, ;Mr. V. M. Parshurami, Addl. Government Pleader, ;Mr. K.K. Singhavi, Senior Adv. , ;Mr. V.A. Thokat, Senior Advoc

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Can proceedings for acquisition of land lawfully taken be challenged., by filing a writ petition after any number of years What should be the approach of the Government and its Ministers when an...

Varun Polymol Organics Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and O ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Sales Tax

Acts : Bombay Sales Tax, 1959 - Sections 2(12B), 2(12C), 2(28), 2(29), 2(32), (35) and (36), 3, 38, 38 (4), 41, 41(1) and B; Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Sections 4, 6A, 8 and 8(5)

Reported in : 1995(3)BomCR502

D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The 1st petitioner herein has set up a manufacturing unit at MIDC, Mahad, an underdeveloped area of the State of Maharashtra in district Raigad manufacturing pesticides covered under entry 31 of Schedule C,...

Kisanrao Manikrao Khopade and Another Vs. Municipal Council, Dhule and ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : PropertyOther Taxes

Acts : Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 - Sections 175, 183, 200, 202, 207, 208, 183, 202, 322 and 328; Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act - Sections 45(2); Constitution of India - Article 166

Reported in : AIR1992Bom249; 1991(4)BomCR9; (1992)94BOMLR808

ORDERS. W. Puranik, J.1. The petitioners are residents of Dhule and own property situate within the jurisdiction of Municipal Council, Dhule. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner had submitted his lay out...

M/S. Videocon Industries Limited Vs. M/S Whirlpool of India Limited

Court : Mumbai

Subject : MRTP

N.M. Jamdar, J. 1. The trial Court by the impugned order has restrained the appellant-defendant 'Videocon Industries Ltd., from marketing a certain design of washing machine. According to respondent-plaintiff M/s.Whirlpool India Ltd., the appellant M/s.Videocon Industries...

Hariprasad Mohanlal Soni and Others Vs. Malegaon Municipal Corporation

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Arbitration

Advocate for Respondent : Shri. R. B. Raghuvanshi

Oral Judgment: 1. The above Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India take exception to three identical orders all dated 18th November, 2010 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Nashik, by which...

M/S. Videocon Industries Limited Vs. M/S Whirlpool of India Limited

Court : Mumbai

Subject : MRTP

N.M. Jamdar, J. 1. The trial Court by the impugned order has restrained the appellant-defendant 'Videocon Industries Ltd., from marketing a certain design of washing machine. According to respondent-plaintiff M/s.Whirlpool India Ltd., the appellant M/s.Videocon Industries...

Yashwant Singh Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2, 25B(2) and 25F

Reported in : [1989(59)FLR607]; (1991)ILLJ501Raj; 1989(2)WLN276

Advocate for Respondent : M.I. Khan, Addl. Adv. General and; G.C. Chatterjee, Adv.

Byas, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing orders Annexure 8 & Annexure 9 each dated 13th June 1987 by which his services were terminated with forthwith effect.2....

Abdul Dadamiya Shaikh Vs. Jagannath Murlidhar Rathi Since Deceased, Th ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Property

Acts : Tenancy Act - Sections 32; Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - 32G and 32P; Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16 and 20; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 43; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 56; Ceiling Act; Indian Limitation Act, 1963 - Scedule - Article 54

Reported in : AIR2002Bom413; 2003(1)BomCR537

Advocate for Respondent : R.D. Soni, Adv. for Respondent No. 1(A), 1(B), 1(C) and 1(E)

J.G. Chitre, J.1. This appeal has been admitted on thefollowing substantial questions of law :-(1) 'Whether having held that the Appellant-Plaintiff had become purchaser undersection 32 of the Tenancy Act, thecourts below ought to have held...