Mumbai Court April 2006 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.
Ajanta India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Harish M. Sariya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(33)PTC46(Bom)
1. Leave under Rules 147 and 148 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (O.S.) 1980 granted to the Appellant to take out a Notice of Motion in terms of the draft Notice of Motion handed in. The draft Notice of Motion is made returnable on 19.6.2006.2. Perused the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had expedited the hearing of the above Notice of Motion No. 682 of 2003 by its order dated 10.8.2005. Hence, we have expedited the hearing of the above Appeal,3. There shall be an ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (a), subject to condition that issue of claim of equity is kept open with regard to the sale of toothpaste. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Aspi Chinoy also states that the Appellants will not claim any equity from today with regard to sale of toothpaste.4. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants undertakes to get the Notice of Motion numbered with a week from today....
State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Subhashchandra Bapusaheb Patankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR315; 2006(6)BomCR373; 2006(4)MhLj751
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent waives service. By consent of Counsel and at the request of Counsel taken up for hearing.2. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has, by its judgment dated 15th September, 2005, which is impugned in these proceedings by the State of Maharashtra, directed the Government to revoke an order by which the respondent was suspended. The State has been directed to reinstate the respondent to the post of Deputy Education Officer (Secondary). The Tribunal while noting that the respondent was arrested in a trap case by the Anti Corruption Bureau in January, 2004, has ordered the revocation of suspension on the ground that no charge-sheet has been filed in the criminal case though a period of seventeen months has elapsed. The Tribunal has relied upon the view which it has taken in earlier cases that where a trial is likely to take a long period of time and there is no likelihoo...
Raghurai Tamba Vs. Reserve Bank of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC188
ORDER1. The petitioner is a firm, of which Mr. Raghurai Tamba, is a partner. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, quashing and setting aside and/or commanding the respondent No. 2/Bank to extend the benefit of the OTS Scheme to the loans taken by the petitioner and also praying for injunction against respondent No. 2-Bank from taking further steps under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of this petition.3. The petitioner had availed of two loans from the respondent/Bank on 30.5.1985 and 29.1.1990, in the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- and Rs. 1,60,000/- respectively. As the repayment was irregular, awards came to be passed against the petitioner. In respect of the first loan, an award was made on 24.10.1996, in the sum of Rs. 17,68,439.70 w...
Framroze Navroji Darukhanawala Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR213
1. Rule. Mr. Dubey for respondent No. 1 waives service. By consent of the learned Counsel taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to cancel and/or withdraw the impugned notice dated 7th June, 2002, Exhibit 'P' and other consequential reliefs. It is stated that the earlier notice dated 13th March, 1972 was challenged by filing Special Civil Application No. 2168 of 1972 in this Court wherein also the petitioner challenged the action of the Government of India seeking to resume the land in Survey No. 753 (Bungalow No. 11, Right Flank Wonwori Line) Poona Cantonment on the ground that the said land belonged to the President of India. It appears that the Union of India issued a fresh notice on the ground that the said land belongs to the President of India and that the petitioner held the same on 'Old Grant Terms' under which the Government was entitled to resume the same. The said petition was d...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›