Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Plaintiff: aditya chitale · Page 1 of about 24 results (0.034 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.

Jul 17 2006

The Archidiocese of Goa, Daman and Dui, Through Its Constituted Attorn ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-17-2006

Subject : Property

Acts : Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulations, 1962

Reported in : 2006(5)BomCR881

Advocate for Appellant : Aditya Chitale, Adv.

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The petition is filed by the Archidiocese of Goa, Daman and Diu and the dispute pertains to certain lands situated in two villages of Daman. The properties including agricultural and non-agricultural lands of...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 13 1998

Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha Vs. Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh and Ot ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-13-1998

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour practices Act, 1971 - Sections 11 and 13

Reported in : 1998(2)ALLMR21; 1998(2)BomCR411; [1998(79)FLR619]; 1998(1)MhLj854

Advocate for Appellant : E.P. Bharucha, S.A. and ;Kiran Bapat, Adv.

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mr. Aditya Chitale appears for respondent No. 1 and waives service. Mr. S.M. Naik appears for respondent No. 2 and waives service on his behalf. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 29 2008

Ruby Coach Builders Limited Vs. Shri P.S. Ghose, Member, Industrial Co ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-29-2008

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Companies Act, 1956; Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 12(3), 18, 18(3), 20 and 28; Payment of Wages Act, 1936 - Sections 3, 4 and 4(5); Payment of Bonus Act, 1965

Reported in : [2008(117)FLR143]; 2008(4)MhLj270

Advocate for Appellant : Aditya Chitale, Adv.

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The Petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Mumbai, which is aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 29-9-1995 rendered by the Learned...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Jun 08 1990

Kumari Meena Mohanlal Merchant Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-08-1990

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 340

Reported in : AIR1991Bom74; 1990(3)BomCR151

Advocate for Appellant : K.K. Singhvi and ;S.N. Singhvi, ;Aditya Chitale and ;B.N. Singhvi, Advs.

ORDER1. The petitioner after passing her Higher Secondary School Examination (XII Standard) in June, 1984 applied for admission for medical course under a reserved seat for other backward class on the ground that she belonged to...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 15 1998

The Union Carbide (India) Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Kumbla and Others

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-15-1998

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2 and 33; Industrial Disputes Act, 1985 - Sections 2; Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Sections 3(5), 28 and 44; Constitution of India - Article 227; Trade Union Act, 1926; Air Force Act, 1950; Navy Act, 1957; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

Reported in : 1999(1)ALLMR540; 1999(1)BomCR705; 1999(2)MhLj63

Advocate for Appellant : P.K. Rele, ;T.S. Shetty and ;Aditya Chitale, Advs.

ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel; Shri Rele for the petitioner employer and Shri S.M. Dharap for respondent No. 1 complainant, who claims to be a workman.2. The petition is by the employer Union...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 25 2005

Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and an ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-25-2005

Subject : Other Taxes

Acts : Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; Octroi Rules, 1965 - Rules 24 to 30; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 265

Reported in : 2005(191)ELT148(Bom)

Advocate for Appellant : Aditya Chitale and ;Kusum Joshi, Advs., i/b., M & M Legal Venture

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Hindustan Lever Limited manufactures soaps and detergents in its factory at Sewri at Mumbai. The company uses a raw material by the name of Sulphuric Acid which is an Organic Surface Active Agent...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 18 2008

Dr. Razia Bano Vs. Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-18-2008

Subject : Property

Acts : Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act - Sections 52(1), 55, 55(1), 136, 136(1) and 149; Bombay Shops And Establishments Act, 1948

Reported in : 2008(5)BomCR453

Advocate for Appellant : Aditya Chitale, Adv.

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.2. The appellant before this Court is the original plaintiff. According to the appellant, she had purchased the suit premises being suit shop No. 1 from one...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 18 2008

Abdul Rashid Khan Vs. Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-18-2008

Subject : Property

Acts : Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act - Sections 55, 55(1), 52(2), 136, 136(1) and 149; Bombay Shops And Establishments Act, 1948

Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR711; 2008(3)MhLj842

Advocate for Appellant : Aditya Chitale, Adv.

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.2. The appellant before this Court is the original plaintiff. According to the appellant, he had purchased the suit premises being suit shop No. 3 from one...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 18 2008

Mrs. Shameem Shah Through Her Constituted Attorney Mr. Abdul Rehman Kh ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-18-2008

Subject : Property

Acts : Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act - Sections 52(1), 55, 55(1), 136, 136(1) and 149; Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948

Reported in : 2008(4)MhLj699

Advocate for Appellant : Aditya Chitale, Adv.

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties. 2. The appellant before this Court is the original plaintiff. According to the appellant, she had purchased the suit premises being suit shop No. 4 from...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 18 2008

Abdul Rehman S/O. Abdul Karim Khan Vs. Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-18-2008

Subject : Property

Acts : Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act - Sections 52(1), 55, 55(1), 136, 136(1) and 149; Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948

Reported in : 2008(4)MhLj198

Advocate for Appellant : Aditya Chitale, Adv.

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties. 2. The appellant before this Court is the original plaintiff. According to the appellant, he had purchased the suit premises being suit shop No. 2 from...

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