Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Plaintiff: r d soni and · Page 1 of about 38 results (0.154 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.

Apr 09 2001

Pralhad Lokram Dodeja and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-09-2001

Subject : Property

Acts : Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 4, 6, 9, 23, 23(1), 26, 26(1), 37, 50, 125, 126, 126(2) and (3), 127, 128 and 128(1) and (3); Constitution of India - Articles 226; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 5-A (1) and (2), 6, 11-A, 4(1), 12(1) and (2), 16, 17, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 48 and 48(1) and (2); Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 - Sections 2(1), 3 and 62; Bangalore Development Act, 1976; Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955 - Sections 81 and 84; Karnataka Act, 1972; Calcutta Act, 1911; Uttar Pradesh Act, 1965; General Clauses Act - Sections 21; Land Acquisition (Company) Rules, 1963 - Rules 3 and 4; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 6, Rule 15 (2) - Order 19

Reported in : 2001(4)BomCR35; (2001)3BOMLR65

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. K.K. Singhavi, Senior Advocate , ;Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, ;Mr. G.H. Keluskar, ;Mr. M.L. Patil and ;Mr. R.D. Soni, Advs.

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Can proceedings for acquisition of land lawfully taken be challenged., by filing a writ petition after any number of years What should be the approach of the Government and its Ministers when an...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 04 1991

Kisanrao Manikrao Khopade and Another Vs. Municipal Council, Dhule and ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-04-1991

Subject : PropertyOther Taxes

Acts : Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 - Sections 175, 183, 200, 202, 207, 208, 183, 202, 322 and 328; Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act - Sections 45(2); Constitution of India - Article 166

Reported in : AIR1992Bom249; 1991(4)BomCR9; (1992)94BOMLR808

Advocate for Appellant : C.J. Sawant with;P.P. Chavan, Advs.;N.B. Shah, Adv.;R.D. Soni, A.G.P.

ORDERS. W. Puranik, J.1. The petitioners are residents of Dhule and own property situate within the jurisdiction of Municipal Council, Dhule. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner had submitted his lay out...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 29 1999

Ramdil Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Videcon International Ltd. and ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-29-1999

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 2(9) and 24; Government of India Act - Sections 107

Reported in : 2000(2)ALLMR434; 2000(1)BomCR54

Advocate for Appellant : R.S. Mohite, Adv.

ORDERDr. B.P. SARAF, J.1. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants seek to challenge the order dated 27th January 1999 of the learned Single Judge rejecting their application for transfer of...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Nov 17 1994

Varun Polymol Organics Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and O ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-17-1994

Subject : Sales Tax

Acts : Bombay Sales Tax, 1959 - Sections 2(12B), 2(12C), 2(28), 2(29), 2(32), (35) and (36), 3, 38, 38 (4), 41, 41(1) and B; Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Sections 4, 6A, 8 and 8(5)

Reported in : 1995(3)BomCR502

D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The 1st petitioner herein has set up a manufacturing unit at MIDC, Mahad, an underdeveloped area of the State of Maharashtra in district Raigad manufacturing pesticides covered under entry 31 of Schedule C,...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 13 2012

M/S. Videocon Industries Limited Vs. M/S Whirlpool of India Limited

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-13-2012

Subject : MRTP

N.M. Jamdar, J. 1. The trial Court by the impugned order has restrained the appellant-defendant 'Videocon Industries Ltd., from marketing a certain design of washing machine. According to respondent-plaintiff M/s.Whirlpool India Ltd., the appellant M/s.Videocon Industries...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 24 2015

Hariprasad Mohanlal Soni and Others Vs. Malegaon Municipal Corporation

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-24-2015

Subject : Arbitration

Oral Judgment: 1. The above Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India take exception to three identical orders all dated 18th November, 2010 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Nashik, by which...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 13 2012

M/S. Videocon Industries Limited Vs. M/S Whirlpool of India Limited

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-13-2012

Subject : MRTP

N.M. Jamdar, J. 1. The trial Court by the impugned order has restrained the appellant-defendant 'Videocon Industries Ltd., from marketing a certain design of washing machine. According to respondent-plaintiff M/s.Whirlpool India Ltd., the appellant M/s.Videocon Industries...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 23 1996

Vinod Ramchandra Gosalka Vs. Sunil Dattatray Tatkare and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-23-1996

Subject : Election

Acts : Representation of People's Act, 1951 - Sections 81(3), 83(1), 86(1) and 86(3)

Reported in : 1997(3)BomCR110

Advocate for Appellant : B.D. Joshi, ;F.D. D'vitre, ;Manoj Bhatt, ;Nusrat Shah and ;C.J. Pooniwala, Advs.

R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. These are four Election Petitions filed by the respective petitioners challenging the election of returned candidates. In all these cases the respective respondents have taken a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 12 1989

Yashwant Singh Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-12-1989

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2, 25B(2) and 25F

Reported in : [1989(59)FLR607]; (1991)ILLJ501Raj; 1989(2)WLN276

Advocate for Appellant : Rajendra Soni, Adv.

Byas, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing orders Annexure 8 & Annexure 9 each dated 13th June 1987 by which his services were terminated with forthwith effect.2....

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 02 2007

Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm and Mr. Suniel K. Mehta, Proprietor ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-02-2007

Subject : BankingCriminal

Acts : Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI) - Sections 13, 13(1), 13(2), 13(3A), 13(4), 14, 14(3), 17, 17(1), 17(3), 18, 19, 31, 34, 35 and 38; Transfer of Property Act - Sections 47 and 48; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11(4), 11(5), 11(6) and 11(7); Registration Act; Bombay Police Act; Customs Act; Representation of People Act - Sections 81; Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 19(1), 20 and 22; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 357; U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Abhiniyam, 1964 - Sections 17; Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - Rules 8, 8(3), 9, 9(6), 9(7), 9(8), 9(9) and 9(10); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 21, Rules 95 and 96; Constitu

Reported in : 2007CriLJ2544; [2008]81SCL173(Bom)

Advocate for Appellant : R.D. Soni and ;G.R. Kinkhabwalla, Advs., i/b., Ram & Co. in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 2767, 27 and 124 of 2007 and ;Subhash Zha, Adv., i/b., Law Global in Criminal Writ Petition No. 343 of 2007

Ranjana Desai, J.1. The question which arises in these writ petitions is whether while dealing with a written request made by a secured creditor under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and...

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