Advanced Search Results

B.T. Patil and Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Konkan Railwa ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11; Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 8, 10 and 20

Reported in : 1998(2)ALLMR107; 1998(4)BomCR111; (1998)1BOMLR744

Advocate for Respondent : R.A. Dada, A.S.G., ;Kiran Bagalia and ;Ms. Vidhya Udas, Advs.

ORDERM.B. Shah, J.1. It is the contention of the applicant a Private Limited Company, that it is a registered contractor in several States, including the State of Maharashtra and Karnataka. The applicant is engaged in civil...

B.T. Patil and Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Konkan Railwa ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 10(1)

Reported in : 1998(4)BomCR422; 1998(1)MhLj327

Advocate for Respondent : R.A. Dada, A.S.G., ;Ms. Kiran Bagalia and ;Vidhya Udas, Advs.

ORDERM.S. Shah, C.J. 1. Contentions raised in these applications are dealt with in Arbitration Application No. 19 of 1997 decided on 5th December 1997. Parties are the same and facts are identical, except difference of dates....

Union Bank of India Vs. Dalpat Gaurishankar Upadyay

Court : Mumbai

Subject : BankingCivil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 34 - Order 34, Rules 2, 10 and 11; Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1956

Reported in : AIR1992Bom482; 1992(3)BomCR61; (1992)94BOMLR204; [1993]76CompCas494(Bom)

Advocate for Respondent : A.M. Kapadia,;G.M. Kotwal on behalf of Indian Bank Association,;R.A. Dada and;Miss S. Paranjape, Amicus Curiae, Advs.

ORDERDr. B. P. Saraf, J. 1. This case has been referred to the Full Bench at the instance of brother Dhanuka J. The controversy that arose for determination relates to interpretation of the expression 'principal sum...

Shamkumar Arjun Dalvi Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Sections 56

Reported in : 1988(1)BomCR131

Advocate for Respondent : J.A. Bardey, Adv.

S.C. Pratap, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith.Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the State.2. Against the impugned externment order, the petitioner has preferred appeal to the State Government. Stay was, however, declined. Hence this...

Balkrishna Mahadeo Apte Vs. Dhanaram Netaji Choudhari and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CriminalFood Adulteration

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 386; Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 7 and 16; Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rule 9

Reported in : 1989(1)BomCR412

Advocate for Respondent : R.M. Agarwal, Adv. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and ;S.S. Phanse, Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 3

S.C. Pratap, J.1. Hearing Mr. V.D. Hon'ble learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.M. Agarwal, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 accused, and going through the impugned judgment and the record of the...

Techno Pack Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 11A, 11B and 11C

Reported in : 1992(57)ELT534(AP)

Advocate for Respondent : I. Koti Reddy, S.C. for Central Govt.

ORDERS.C. Pratap, C.J.1. Hearing counsel on either side and considering all such facts and circumstances to which our attention was drawn and, in particular, carefully going through Division Bench Judgment dated 26th February, 1991 in the...

Ecoplast Private Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excises Act, 1944; ;Customs Act, 1962

Reported in : 1988LC123(Bombay); 1988(34)ELT446(Bom)

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

S.C. Pratap, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents appear and waive service.2. The differential amount of duty amounting to Rs. 74,000/- has been already paid by the petitioners albeit under protest and without prejudice to their rights...

Harnam Singh and Diljit Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Customs

Reported in : 1988(16)LC395(Bombay)

ORDERS.C. Pratap, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Sethna appears for the respondents and waives service.2. The article in question was first listed as an OGL item. By public notice dated 26th September, 1986 it was removed...

Atmaram Onkar Talele Vs. Ananda Shrawan Kolambe

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Tenancy

Reported in : (1970)72BOMLR287; 1970MhLJ569

Deshpande, J.1. These two Special Civil Applications are connected matters and raise an interesting question as to the true scope and interpretation of Section 88D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to...

Dattajirao Balwantrao Mane Vs. Nani Palkhivala and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Contempt of Court

Acts : Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2

Reported in : 1988(1)BomCR13

Advocate for Respondent : S.B. Jaisinghani and ; Satish Mane Shinde, Advs. for respondent Nos. 2 to 4

S.C. Pratap, J.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Niteen Pradhan for the petitioner submits that in view of the first respondent Nani Palkhivala's letter to the learned Advocate Mr. S.B. Jaisinghani---and which letter is now part of the...