Advanced Search Results

Jimmy Abraham Thomas and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 3; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 115; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 226 and 266; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 1, Rule 8; Dentists Act, 1948 - Sections 10A and 10B(3); Indian Medical Councils Act, 1956 - Sections 10A, 10A(1), 10A(2), 10A(7), 10B, 10B(1), 10C, 20 and 33; Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Sections 3; Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993

Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR1; 2002(3)BomCR219

Advocate for Appellant : V.C. Kotwal, Senior Advocate, ;Gulam E. Vahanvati, Advocate General, ;A.A. Kumbhakoni, Special Counsel, ;Armin Kalyanram, A.G.P., ; Sunip Sen, A. Wani and Mehul Shah, Advs. i/b., Little & Co.,

H. L. Gokhale, J.1. All the writ petitions in Group (A) above invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise common questions with respect to the correctness and legality of the Maharashtra Health Sciences Common...

Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia Vs. Subodh Mody

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Evidence Act - Sections 4, 5, 21, 33, 36, 66, 91, 92, 93 and 123; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 12; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999 - Sections 27; Stamp Act - Sections 36; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 89 - Order 7, Rule 14 - Order 8, Rules 1, 1A, 6G and 8A - Order 12, Rule 2 and 2A - Order 13, Rules 1, 3, 4, 4(1) and 6 - Order 18, Rules 2(4), 4, 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 4(4), 4(5), 4(6), 4(7), 4(8), 17A, 18 and 19 - Order 19, Rules 1 and 2 - Order 26, Rules 4A, 16, 16A, 17 and 18; Constitution of India - Article 21; Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules - Rule 7

Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR352; 2008(6)MhLj886

Advocate for Appellant : P.S. Parikh and ;Sujata Mahadgat, Advs. in W.P. No. 623 of 2005, ;H.M. Advani, Adv. in W.P. No. 1902 of 2005, ;A.M. Vernekar, Adv. in Admiralty Suit No. 31 of 1995, ;A.C. Sampat, Adv. in Suit No. 3681

Vijay C. Daga, J.1. The question presented in these cases require us to resolve two conflicting lines of precedents on the one hand, as the Court stress that 'it is necessary for Court to decide about...

M.V. sea Success I Vs. Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and I ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Admiralty Courts Act, 1861 - Sections 5; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 7, Rule 11

Reported in : 2002(2)BomCR537

Advocate for Appellant : Z.P. Bharucha and ;P.D. Kadam, Advs. in Appl. No. 226/2001 in Notice of Motion No. 2455/2000 in Admiralty Suit No. 32/2000 and ;G.A. Rebello and ;E. Markar, Advs. in Appl. No. 739/2000 in Notice of Mo

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The learned Single Judge while dismissing Notice of Motion No. 2455/2000 with regard to prayer (a) taken out by the Vessel m.v. 'Sea Success I' and her owners S.S. Shipping Corporation Inc. in...

Owners Partners Vessel Shbdharti Vs. Seahorse Marine Engineering Pltd

Court : Chennai

Subject : Arbitration

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:29. 01/2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA A.No.4265 of 2012 in C.S.No.504 of 2012 Owners Partners Vessel SHBDharti vs. Seahorse Marine Engineering PLtd FOR PETITIONER : Krishna...

Great Pacific Navigation (Holdings) Corporation Limited Vs. M.V. Tongl ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Section 9- A - Order 7 Rule 11; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9, 11(6); Companies Act, 1956

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. F.E. DeVitre; Mr.Zarir Bharucha, Advs.

1. This it the defendant's Notice of Motion to have an order of arrest dated 9th December, 2010, of the defendant-vessel, vacated and for an order directing the plaintiffs to pay damages towards losses suffered due...

Powai Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Jayanti Satyanaraya ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 1, Rule 3 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, - Order 40, Rule 1; Bombay Municipal Corporation Act - Sections 346; U.L.C.R. Act - Sections 20

Reported in : 1998(2)BomCR780

Advocate for Appellant : D.R. Zailwala and ;V.J. Shah, Advs., i/by L.C. Tolat & Co.;G.T. Mestha

ORDER1. This Cross Objection is filed against the order dated 4th April, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No. 690 of 1996. It has been contended by the appellants that, without...

Lufeng Shipping Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. M.V. Rainbow Ace and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Education

1. The present Notice of Motion is taken out by the Applicant – Rainbow Ace Shipping S.A. Panama, Owner of Defendant No.1 Vessel M.V. Rainbow Ace for setting aside the order of arrest of Defendant No....

Krishna Filaments Ltd. Vs. Industrial Development Bank of India and or ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CompanyBanking

Acts : Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Sections 5 and 6; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 9A; Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 2, 17 and 18

Reported in : I(2005)BC317; 2004(2)BomCR16; [2004]118CompCas356(Bom); 2004(2)MhLj823; [2004]53SCL79(Bom)

Advocate for Appellant : V.C. Kotwal, ;P.K. Samdani and ;Pratik Sekseria, Advs., i/b., Little and Co.

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This is an appeal by original defendant No. 1 against an order dated July 6, 2000, passed by a single judge of this court dismissing the notice of motion taken out by the...

Controller of Estate Duty, Pune Vs. R.G. Deshmukh

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Sections 24

Reported in : [1980]124ITR273(Bom); [1980]3TAXMAN260(Bom)

Advocate for Appellant : V.C. Kotwal, Adv.

Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the CED, Pune. The following two questions have been refereed...

Kapil P. Mohmed Vs. S. Anthony

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Contempt of Court

Acts : Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 8; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (CPCP), 1908 - Sections 2(2), 9 and 9A - Order 7 - Rule 10 , Order 43, Rule 1

Reported in : 1984(2)BomCR199

Advocate for Appellant : V.C. Kotwal, Adv. and ;Shellim Samuel & Co.

Sharad Manohar, J.1. This contempt processing was required to be instituted on account of the gross kind of contempt which, according to the respondent, he is entitled to commit by telling the Court that he is...