Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Plaintiff: w g deo · Page 1 of about 11 results (0.139 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.

Oct 14 1983

Madhya Pradesh Industrial and Commercial Corportation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tr ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-14-1983

Subject : Other Taxes

Acts : Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 - Sections 3(1) and 3(3); Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1959 - Rule 5(1) and 5(2)

Reported in : AIR1984Bom135; 1984MhLJ239

Advocate for Appellant : W.G. Deo, Adv.

Ginwala, J.1. The petitioner owned a truck. On 13-8-1975 it intimated respondent 2 who is the Taxing Authority under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in form 'NT' prescribed...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 27 1978

Ramjilal Vs. Gulabrao

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-27-1978

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 111, 112, 113 and 116

Reported in : AIR1979Bom44; 1978MhLJ850

Advocate for Appellant : W.G. Deo, Adv.

ORDER1. The facts in this revision application are no more in dispute and raise a short question of law.2. The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff in the premises in suit On 28th October 1974...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 16 1978

Bhaurao Shamrao Bhalme and ors. Vs. Mahadeo Raghu Yelekar

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-16-1978

Subject : Contract

Acts : Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 12, 12(3), 20 and 20(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 6, Rule 6; Specific Relief Act, 1877 - Sections 22

Reported in : AIR1979Bom208; (1979)81BOMLR323

Advocate for Appellant : W.G. Deo, Adv.

1. The appellants had brought a suit against the respondent for specific performance of a contract of sale of a field admeasuring 10 acres for a consideration of Rs.400/-. The suit was dismissed by the trial...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Feb 19 1972

Shankarlal Laxminarayan Rathi and ors. Vs. Gangabisen Maniklal Sikchi ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-19-1972

Subject : Property

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 2, Rules 2 and 4

Reported in : AIR1972Bom326; 1972MhLJ738

Advocate for Appellant : P.P. Deo, ;W. G. Deo, ;V.R. Manohar and ;K.G. Chendke, Advs. in F.A.F.O.D. No. 12 of 1970, ;A.S. Bobde, ;B.A. Udhoji and ;M.L. Vaidya, Advs. in F.A.F.O. D. No. 19 of 1970

Kotwal, C.J. (This reference to a Full Bench has been occasioned by a conflict of decisions of this Court in Channappa Girimalappa v. Bagalkot Bank : AIR1942Bom338 and Rama Kallappa Pujari v. Saidappa Sidrama Pujari AIR...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 11 1976

Yamunabai Govindrao Mahajan and anr. Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nag ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-11-1976

Subject : PropertyCivil

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 31(2) and 31(5); Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 - Schedule - Articles 1, 15 and 31; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 3, 11, 12(1), 18, 19, 19(1), 20, 23, 24, 53 and 54; Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 - Sections 61 and 62; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 115 - Order XXXIII

Reported in : AIR1977Bom405

Advocate for Appellant : W.G. Deo, Adv.

Masodkak, J.1. These two petitions arise out of land acquisition proceedings initiated for the purpose of Nagpur Improvement Trust relating to Khasra Nos. 72, 73, 74 and 75 of Mouza Pardi, in which the petitioners in...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 13 1970

The Punjab National Bank Ltd. Vs. Ishwarbhai Bhai Lalbhai Patel and Co ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-13-1970

Subject : Banking

Acts : Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 191, 192, 193 and 194; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 1, Rule 10 - Order 6, Rule 17

Reported in : AIR1971Bom348; 1971MhLJ9

Advocate for Appellant : P.P. Deo and ;W.G. Deo, Advs.

Padhye, J.1. This second appeal had earlier come up for hearing before a Single Judge Mr. Justice Nain and2. The suit was by the present respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 01 1973

Govindlal Bhikulal Maheshwari and ors. Vs. Firm Thakurdas Bhallabhadas ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-01-1973

Subject : Civil

Acts : Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 38

Reported in : AIR1974Bom164; 1974MhLJ106

Advocate for Appellant : P.P. Deo and ;W.G. Deo, Advs.

Chandurkar, J. 1. This is an appeal which was originally filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the joint Civil Judge. Senior Division, Nagpur, dismissing his suit for recovery of Rs. 35,281.78p. from...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 01 1984

Benisham Mohanlal Khetan Vs. Mahadeo Tukaram Borkar

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-01-1984

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 6, Rule 17 - Order 7, Rule 19

Reported in : AIR1985Bom462; 1986(2)BomCR352

Advocate for Appellant : V.V. Deo,;W.G. Deo and;Y.D. Ramteke, Advs.

V.A. Mohta, J.1. This reference has been made to resolve a conflict on a point -Can a Civil Court under O. 6, R. 17 of the Civil P. C. allow the plaint to he so amended...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 01 1985

Benisham Mohanlal Khetan Vs. Mahadeo Tukaram Borkar

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-01-1985

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 6, Rule 17 - Order 7, Rule 10

Reported in : (1987)87BOMLR397; 1985MhLJ616

Advocate for Appellant : V.V. Deo, ;W.G. Deo and ;Y.D. Ramtake, Advs.

V.A. Mohta, J.1. This reference has been made to resolve a conflict on a point-Can a Civil Court under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code allow the plaint to be so amended as...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 18 1966

Janata Oil Industries, Nagpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ea ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-18-1966

Subject : Sales Tax

Acts : Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 - Sections 2, 22, 22-A(1) and 22-A(2)

Reported in : [1967]19STC97(Bom)

Advocate for Appellant : W.G. Deo, Adv.

Patel, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge an order made by the Commissioner of Sales Tax rejecting his revision application as not competent. The short facts are as below : The petitioner is a dealer of...

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