Mumbai Goa Court June 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S. Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri V. Palekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. A. Agni, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal has been admitted by this Court on 22/10/2008 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Directors drawing remuneration in excess of the statutory maximum could be counted for the purpose of arriving at the statutory minimum number of employees for deciding coverage?” 3. Shri V. Palekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants also filed the above Miscellaneous Civil Application No.801/2008 to produce additional documents under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. This Court by order dated 5/03/2010 directed that the said application be decided at the time of the disposal of the appeal. Hence, the learned Counsel addressed submissions in support of their rival contentions on the above appeal as well as the said application. 5. Shri V. Palekar, the ...
Shri Krishna Nonu Naik, (Since Deceased) Legal Heirs of Deceased Plain ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent nos. 24(i), 25 and 26 and Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 27 and 28. 2. The above Second Appeal was admitted by this Court by an Order dated 06.11.2003 on the following substantial question of law: “1) Whether the contesting Respondents had locus standi to file the Regular Civil Appeal opposing the decree of declaration, when: i) the Appellants had not filed suit against the contesting Respondents but the pleadings and the relief was directed against the Respondent no. 1 only who gave cause of action. ii) the contesting Respondents had not filed counter claim seeking inclusion of their names in survey record. 2) Whether although the final decree incorporates the prayer, omission to reproduce the prayer in the judgment and order after stating that the suit is decreed is fatal making the decree ineffecti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›