Mumbai Court May 1986 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.
Shantilal Amolakchand Burad Vs. Vijay Ramji Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1986
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR535; 1986MhLJ713
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. These two Letters Patent appeals seek to challenge the Judgment Reported in [1986] Mah. L.J. 314 given by a learned single Judge of this Court in writ petition No. 4266 of 1985. Necessarily few facts leading to the said writ petition ought to be mentioned. For the sake of convenience, the parties as described in letters patent appeal No. 24 of 1986 are referred to in this judgment.2. The 9th respondent, namely the Girna Sahakari Sakhar Kaikhana Limited, is a specified co-operative society within the meaning of Section 73G of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the ''said Act' or 'the Act'. Respondents Nos. 1 to 8 were the petitioners in the writ petition. Respondent No. 10 was respondent No. 2 in the writ petition. Respondent No. 2 had called a general body meeting of the society to consider a resolution expressing no confidence in the managing committee of the society purporting to be a resolution under bye-law No, 34(c) o...
Vishal Gomantak Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Board of Trustees for the P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Bom394
Couto, J.1. The petitioners, a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, are the owners of a ship registered in India and named m.v. 'DAMODARSAL', which was at the material time anchored within the area of the Mormugao Harbour. They challenge, by this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the notice dt. 27th June, 1985, whereby they were called upon to pay immediately a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- per day with effect from 16th May, 1985, and further seek a writ directing the respondents to withdraw or cancel it and to permit the port clearance of the said vessel without the payment of the penalty as aforesaid or any part thereof.2. The petitioners acquired in the year 1982 the said vessel m.v. 'DAMODARSAL', purportedly to convert her into a transshipped vessel to be used in the Mormugao Port and, accordingly, in December of the same year, brought and anchored her within the harbour area of the said port at the place where she was moored when this petition w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›