Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Plaintiff: milind jadhav · Page 1 of about 6 results (0.040 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 05 2016

Tanaji Dharmaraj Patil and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-05-2016

Subject : Criminal

Mridula Bhatkar, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.1077 of 2007 is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 against conviction. Criminal Appeal No.948 of 2014 is filed by State against acquittal. Criminal Revision Application No.622 of 2007 is...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 16 2014

Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Bhuribai Bhudarmal Shah and Others

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-16-2014

Subject : Land Acquisition

1. By administrative order dated 14.3.2013, the Honourable Chief Justice was pleased to club this Writ Petition along with Writ Petition No.1363 of 2012 (O.S.). By subsequent order dated 4.7.2014, both these petitions were placed before...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 17 2008

Perfect Machine Tools Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-17-2008

Subject : PropertyCivil

Acts : Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 2(19), 125, 126(1), 126, 127, 136, 136(1) and 152; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 3; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 434; Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005; Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - Sections 3A, 3C and 40; Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - Sections 2(15) and 2(19); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 80 - Order 29, Rule 2 and 2A

Reported in : 2008(6)BomCR200; 2008(2)MhLj404

Advocate for Appellant : Milind Jadhav, Adv., i/b., ;Haresh Mehta and Co.

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') empowers a planning authority, development authority or, as the case may be, any appropriate authority to...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Feb 07 2005

The Special Land Acquisition Officers Vs. Smt. Anibai Janardhan Patil ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-07-2005

Subject : CivilProperty

Acts : Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 4(1), 6, 10, 10(3), 11, 17, 18, 19(1), 20, 20(1), 21, 23, 23A, 24 and 28; Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 126(4); Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 - Sections 20 and 21; Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1966 - Sections 49, 49(1), 102, 126 and 128; Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 20 and 20(1); Urban Land Ceiling Rules - Rule 11A

Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR675

Advocate for Appellant : M.D. Naik, Asst. Government Pleader and ;C.M. Korde, Sr. Counsel, ;D.V. Merchant and ;Milind Jadhav, Advs., i/b., Pravin Mehta and Mithi & Co.;G.S. Hegde and ;C.M. Lokesh, Advs.

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. This group of land acquisition references arises out of a common notification and for common public purpose and, therefore, the same is disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By notification issued on...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 03 2002

Harshad Sunderlal Maniar Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-03-2002

Subject : CivilProperty

Acts : Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11 and 18

Reported in : 2002(6)BomCR297

Advocate for Appellant : C.M. Korde and ;Milind Jadhav, Advs., i/b., R.K. Karikath

1. Admit. Respondents waive service.By consent appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appellant is a Government approved valuer. He is aggrieved by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paras 11 and 16...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 19 2013

Shashikant Tulsidas Kamble and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-19-2013

Subject : Criminal

A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Arfan Sait, appointed under the Free Legal Aid Scheme for both the appellants/orig. accused persons. Also heard learned APP for the State Mrs. Deshmukh. Perused the R and...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

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

  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial