Mumbai Court October 2000 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.
Jameer A.K. Lokhandwala and anr. Vs. Panchagani Hill Station Municipal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom120; 2001(2)BomCR215
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. By this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the show cause notice dated March, 9, 1998 issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the order dated Sept. 30, 1998 passed by the respondent No. 1. 2. This is a classic case of abuse of process of court by the petitioner. We are therefore, inclined to summarily dismiss this writ petition on the ground of conduct of the petitioner. The chronology of events mentioned hereinafter would establish the devious means adopted by the petitioners, which amounts to abuse of process of the Court. 3. Briefly stated, on 17th June, 1998, the petitioners made an application to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for permission to repair the existing stair case at the rear side of the building on the suit property which consists of a ground and one upper floor and attire (with sloping roof). This property was allegedly purchased by the petitioners, pursuance to the registered sale ...
J.J.L.B. Engineers and Contractors Through Its Partner Balabeersingh V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR149; 2001(3)BomCR577
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. The appellant challenges the order dated 20th March, 1986 passed by the lower Court in Misc. Application No. 145/81 rejecting the objections filed under sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called as the said Act) to the award dated 6-11-81.3. The appellant is a registered partnership firm and was awarded the contract of canal work in relation to Jayakwadi project. The appellant had applied the services of the respondent No. 2 on contract basis and the payments thereof were made either to the respondent No. 2 himself or in the name of his firm i.e. respondent No. 1. At some point of time, dispute arose between the appellant and the respondents, and one of the partners of the appellant-firm by name Bhupindersingh signed an agreement agreeing for reference of dispute to arbitration pursuant to which award dated 6-11-81 was delivered.4. It is the case of the appellant that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›