Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Defendent: ravi kadam · Page 1 of about 111 results (0.078 seconds)

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

May 06 2008

Shri Balasaheb Dhondiram Jagdale and Shri Jaysingh mahadeo Chavan Vs. ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-06-2008

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956 - Article 371; Appropriation Act; Development Board Order, 1994 - Rules 7, 7(4), 7(5) and 8; Development Board for Vidharbha and Marathwada and rest of Maharashtra Order, 1994; State of Maharashtra (Special Responsibility of Governor of Vidarbha, Marathwada and Rest of Maharashtra) Order; Constitution of India - Articles 13(3), 154, 162, 199, 199(1), 200, 202, 202(2), 202(3), 203, 204, 205, 206, 266(3), 371, 371(2), 371D, 371D(3) and 371F

Reported in : 2008(4)ALLMR108; 2008(5)BomCR163; (2008)110BOMLR1617; 2008(5)MhLj300

Advocate for Respondent : Ravi Kadam, Adv. General and ;Nitin Deshpande, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 12, ;Shrihari Aney, Senior Adv., ;Akhila Kaushik i/b. Madhav Jamdar, Advs. for Respondent No. 6, 14, ;Vijay Patil, Ad

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In all the above Petitions, the issue involved is with regard to the special responsibility cast on the Governor of the State of Maharashtra, with regard to development of Vidharbha area. The present...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 04 2006

Shri Manjit Singh S/O Moolsingh Sethi Vs. Maharashtra Assembly, Mahara ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-04-2006

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Right to Information Act (RTI) - Sections 30; Evidence Act; Delhi's Laws Act, 1912; Prisoners Act, 1900 - Sections 3; Advocates Act, 1961; Bar Councils Act, 1926 - Sections 9, 9A and 14(1); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) ; Maharashtra Legislative Rules - Rules 74, 76, 277 and 284; Constitution of India - Articles 12, 19(1), 20, 21, 22, 22(1), 32, 105, 141, 143(1), 194, 194(3), 208, 208(1), 212, 226 and 226(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Reported in : 2006(4)MhLj834

Advocate for Respondent : None

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is seeking appropriate writ to quash the impugned order dated 11th/12th April 2006 whereby the petitioner was sentenced...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 17 2009

Smt. Hetal Alpesh Muchhala Vs. Adityesh Educational Institute and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-17-2009

Subject : ArbitrationCompany

Acts : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 33, 34 and 34(3); Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 35 and 35(1); Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10E, 10E(4C), 10E(4D), 10F, 397 and 398; Companies (Amendment) Act, 1963; Companies (Amendment) Act, 1974; Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988; Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908; Income-tax Act, 1961 - Sections 252; Evidence Act; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3, 4 to 24, 29 and 29(2)

Reported in : [2009]152CompCas75(Bom)

Advocate for Respondent : Ravi Kadam, ;Chetan Kapadia, ;I.J. Nankani, ;Hujeba Khokhawala, Advs. instructed by Nankani and Associates for respondent No. 3, ;Iqbal Chagla and ;Pratik Sakseria, Advs. instructed by L.J. Law for re

S.J. Kathawalla, J.1. By this company application, the applicant/appellant seeks condonation of delay of 105 days in lodging the company appeal filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. The question which arises for determination...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

May 06 2008

Girish Kanaiyalal Munshi Vs. Sudha Girish Munshi and Kirtidev Girish M ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-06-2008

Subject : Civil

Acts : Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 - Sections 46; Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 - Sections 36; Indian Succession Act; Family Courts Act - Sections 7(1); Constitution of India - Article 14

Reported in : AIR2008Bom136; 2008(4)BomCR787; (2008)110BOMLR1524

Advocate for Respondent : Ravi Kadam, Adv. General and ;Shekhar Ingawale, A.G.P for State

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In view of various conflicting decisions of a number of Single Judges, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has referred the following Question for being answered:Whether a woman litigant who files a petition for...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 04 2007

State of Maharashtra Vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-04-2007

Subject : Civil

Acts : Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966

Reported in : 2007(2)ALLMR(SC)410; 2007(1)SCALE72; (2007)3SCC587; AIR 2007 SC 777

Advocate for Respondent : G.E. Vahanvati, Solicitor General of India, ; Ravi Kadam, Adv. General, ;

AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant State of Maharashtra has filed the above appeal from the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated 23.05.2005 only for the purpose of expunging certain remarks made...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 22 2003

international Reinsurance and Insurance Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-22-2003

Subject : Civil

Acts : Companies Act, 1956

Reported in : AIR2003Bom410; 2003(3)ALLMR907; 2003(4)BomCR638; 2003(3)MhLj174

Advocate for Respondent : Virendra Tulzapurkar, ;Ravi Kadam, ;K.A. Sampat and ;H.N. Tha, Advs. i/b., ;Thakor Jariwala and Associates

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the present notice of motion for the following interim reliefs during the pendency and disposal of the main suit.(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 02 2002

Medley Laboratories (P) Ltd., Mumbai and anr. Vs. Alkem Laboratories L ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-02-2002

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2(1)

Reported in : 2002(3)ALLMR18; 2002(4)BomCR70; 2002(3)MhLj546

Advocate for Respondent : Ravi Kadam, Adv., i/b., M.A. Mahadgut, Adv.

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This Appeal is instituted against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on December 21, 2001 in Notice of Motion No. 1790 of 2001. By the impugned Order, the learned Single Judge...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 17 2008

Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society Limited, a Co-operative Society ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-17-2008

Subject : PropertyCivil

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3, 14, 27 and 58; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999 - Sections 32; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 16; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 9, 9A, 115 - Order 2, Rule 2 - Order 7, Rules 6 and 11 - Order 14, Rule 2; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Indian Trusts Act, 1882; Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Sections 33; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Sections 164

Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR600; 2009(1)BomCR757; (2008)110BOMLR3696; 2009(2)MhLj28

Advocate for Respondent : Ravi Kadam, Adv. General, ;V.B. Naik, ;Vikram Trivedi, ;Faisal Sayyed and ;Durgesh Khanapurkar, Advs., i/b., M.K. Ambalal & Co.

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.1.2006, passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court. The Learned Single Judge has held that the question of limitation could be...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 22 2007

Babar Sher Khan and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai and ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-22-2007

Subject : Civil

Acts : Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 2(7), 52(1), 53, 55, 55(2) and 149; MHADA Act - Sections 173 and 177

Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR89; 2008(2)BomCR335

Advocate for Respondent : N.V. Walawalkar, Sr. C. and; Geeta Joglekar, Adv. for Respondent No. 1 BMC.,; Ravi Kadam, A.G. and; G.W. Mattoos, Advs. and; Geeta Mulekar, AGP for Respondent No. 2-MHADA

Sathe S.R., J.1. By consent heard finally at admission stage.2. The Appellants-original plaintiffs in Notice of Motion No. 2423 of 2007 in L.C. Suit No. 2619 of 2007 have preferred this appeal against the order passed...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 22 2002

Bdh Industries Ltd. Vs. Croydon Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and a ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-22-2002

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 11 and 12

Reported in : 2002(3)ALLMR61; 2002(4)BomCR5

Advocate for Respondent : Ravi Kadam and ;Manish Saurashtri, Advs., i/b., Shantilal & Co.

ORDERJ.A. Patil, J.1. This is a petition under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short the Act 1958), challenging the order dated 29-12-1995 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Mark...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial