Advanced Search Results
Shri Hari Pandurang Bhave Vs. Sonba Kondiba Bankar and Others
Mumbai
Oct-13-1999
Criminal
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - Sections 2(42), 147, 398 and 466 - Standing Orders 4, 5 and 9; Pune City Municipal Corporation Octroi Rules - Rules 8 and 23; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 313
2000(4)BomCR804; (2000)1BOMLR736; 2000(2)MhLj613
Ms. S.M. Dandekar, Adv. ;S.R. Shinde, ;Ms. R.P. Sabarwal, ;Ms. Usha Kejriwal, ;M.P. Galeria, ;A.M. Shringarpure, ;S.G. Rajput, ;Ms. P.H. Kantharia, ;I.S. Thakur, ;R.Y. Mirza, ;D.N. Salvi, ;F.R. Shaikh
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. The appellant who was Checking Naka Officer of the Pune Municipal Corporation has filed these appeals against the Judgment delivered by JMFC (PMC) Pune on 30th may 1985 in Summary Trial Cases No....
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskShrirang Dharmaraj Kale Vs. Najmunissa A. Rahimbee Shaikh and ors.
Mumbai
Sep-12-2002
Tenancy
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Sections 13(1)
2003(3)ALLMR51; 2003(2)BomCR621; (2003)2BOMLR369; 2003(1)MhLj638
S.M. Dandekar, Adv. For respondent Nos. 1 to 8
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. These Writ Petitions under Article 227 take exception to the Judgment and decree dated 3-4-1989 of the 5th Addl. District Judge, Solapur in Civil Appeal No. 259 of 1987. The premises in...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskSelina P. Shah Vs. Principal, Mithibai College of Arts and ors.
Mumbai
Mar-21-2007
Service
Constitution of India - Article 30(1)
2007(4)BomCR678
Rahul Nerlekar, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and ;S.M. Dandekar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5
Kanade V.M., J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. The petitioner is challenging judgment and Order passed by the College Tribunal, Mumbai whereby Presiding...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Bank of India Vs. Radhakrishnan Iyer
Mumbai
Jun-16-1999
Banking
1999(4)BomCR895
Ms. S.M. Dandekar, Adv.
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The matter was heard yesterday and was adjourned today at the request of the Counsel for the plaintiffs. None present when the matter is called out.2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAbbas Zoheb Lokhandwala Through His Mother and Natural Guardian, Mrs. ...
Mumbai
Sep-07-2007
Constitution
Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act, 1965 - Sections 18 and 19; Constitution of India - Article 226
2007(6)ALLMR503; 2007(6)BomCR33; 2008(2)MhLj244
Deepa Chavan and ;Kiran Gandhi, Advs., i/b., ;Little & Co., Adv. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and ;S.M. Dandekar, AGP for Respondent No. 3
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Petitioners in this batch of Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, appeared for the Secondary and Higher Secondary Certificate Examination conducted by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskManubhai Paragji Vashi Vs. University of Bombay and Another
Mumbai
Jan-22-1993
Civil
Bombay University Act, 1974 - Sections 8, 9(1), 18(1),19, 22, 24, 76A, 76B; Advocates' Act, 1961 - Sections 49; Constitution of India - 14, 19 and 226; Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act - Sections 16(1); Indian Bar Council Act, 1926 - Sections 14
AIR1993Bom197; 1993(3)BomCR364; (1993)95BOMLR855; 1993(2)MhLj1197
S. Radhakrishnan, ;R.A. Rodrigues, ;V.R. Manohar Advocate General for ;State of Maharashtra, ;Ms. S.M. Dandekar and ;B.P. Pandya, Advs.
ORDER1. This writ petition involvesconsideration of validity of Ruling given by Shri C. Subramanian, the then Chancellor of University of Bombay incorporated in Circular Exhibit 'A' to the petition prescribing a norm of propriety required to...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskChandrakant Venkatesh Moholkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Mumbai
Oct-04-2000
Service
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 216, 225, 226, 229 and 235; Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 - Rule 8(8)
2001(2)ALLMR119; 2001(1)BomCR667; (2001)1BOMLR508; 2000(4)MhLj793
Shri R.M. Sawant, Government Pleader and ;Ms. S.M. Dandekar, Assistant Government Pleader
B. P. Singh, C. J.1. The Petitioner herein, a member of the Maharashtra Judicial Service, was working as Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for Greater Bombay, when a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, resulting in an...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskMrs. Nandini NitIn Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Mumbai
Jan-25-2000
ServiceContract
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 115; Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 8; Constitution of India - Article 226
2000(2)ALLMR98; 2000(3)BomCR94; (2000)2BOMLR180; [2000(86)FLR280]; (2000)IILLJ1253Bom; 2000(3)MhLj367
Ms. S.M. Dandekar, Adv.
ORDERV.C. Daga, J. 1. The petitioner is seeking a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra and respondent No. 2 is...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskDr. P. NavIn Kumar and ors. Vs. the Bombay Municipal Corporation and o ...
Mumbai
Sep-10-1996
Environment
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Sections 252 and 351; Environments (Protection) Rules, 1986 - Rule 5; Heritage Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1995 - Regulation 67; Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Sections 61, 252 and 351; Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 - Sections 64
1997(1)BomCR652
K.K. Singhvi and ;M.B. Rao, Advs. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, ;S.M. Dandekar, Adv. for respondent No. 3, ;Gulam Vahanwati, ;E.P. Bharucha, ;J.J. Bhatt, ;R.J. Gagrat, ;Ruby Kerawala and ;Madhu Nair, A
M.B. Shah, C.J.1. The question involved in these two public interest petitions is whether the Municipal Corporation should be permitted to construct toilet block near 'Gateway of India'. Petitioners have prayed that the Municipal Corporation be...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskSitaram Laxminarayan Rathi Vs. Sitaram Kashiram Koli and ors.
Mumbai
Mar-29-1984
Banking
Bombay Money Lender's Act, 1946 - Sections 2(9); Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 5 and 6; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 34
1984(2)BomCR819; 1985MhLJ430
S.M. Dandekar, Adv. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The short question that arises in this revision application is whether a post dated cheque is a negotiable instrument within the meaning of the Bombay Money Lenders Act.2. The relevant facts are as...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »