Zade Manisha Gunderaoji and Others Vs State of Maharashtra and Others
.... self was illegal, which was sufficient to refuse to accept the examination forms and deny the students to appear for the examination, as it was against relevant rules and provisions made in that regard. In that connection, respondent No. 6 as well as the petitioners have relied upon the Governmen ...
bombay high court (aurangabad bench)
Meera Bhagwat Jadhavar and Others Vs The State of Maharashtra and Others <BR> Parad Sudhir Anantrao and Others
.... record vide Exh. R. 2. Despite this position, the concerned respondents again failed to comply with the said order and, therefore, the institution was left with no other alternative but to file contempt petition before the Apex Court, which is still pending adjudication. Thereafter, in the month ...
bombay high court (aurangabad bench)
Bhagwan Mapari Vs Appa Mapari
.... submission of both the parties and their Advocates that T.I.L.R. was appointed by the trial Court so as to comply terms and conditions of this compromise pursis or application and thus Exhibit 18 was held to be legal compromise. 9. Now, the question remains whether document at Exhibit 18, which ...
bombay high court (aurangabad bench)
Ulhas Somwanshi, Smt. Pushpa Manchanda, Child Development Project Officer, Mohan Jadhav and Sunil Ahire Vs The State of Maharashtra and Others <BR> Kiran Satappa Kamble, Child Development Project Officer and Others
.... f Maharashtra v. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar AIR 1989 S.C. 1133, learned advocate Shri Deshpande has placed reliance upon the observations in para 9 of the judgement. In the reported matter, respondents No. 1 to 8 were Assistant Secretaries/Section Officers/Superintendents in different Departments o ...
bombay high court (aurangabad bench)
Anil Motilal Nimbhore Vs State of Maharashtra and Others
.... and, therefore, rules framed thereunder stand repealed as soon as new Rules (1986) are framed by invoking powers under Article 309 of the Constitution. We are afraid, that such a submission is not acceptable. Article 395 of the Constitution reads: 395. Repeals- The Indian Independence Act, 1947, ...
bombay high court (aurangabad bench)
Bhaskar Shinde Vs The State of Maharashtra, Co.op Department, The Collector, Osmanabad Returning Officer for elections of Shivshakti Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Limited and Shivshakti Shetkari Sahakri Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
.... the work of preparation of provisional voters list commences after more than six months since the 30th June. In the matter at hands, provisional committee requested the Collector for holding election, by resolution dated 4.12.2006, about 3-1/2 months before expiry of its term. Although committee ...
bombay high court (aurangabad bench)
Vitthal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana and Deepak Nagnath Nalwade Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Special Recovery Officer, Gangapur Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana and The Bank of India, Branch at Kurduwadi
.... shall neither be responsible for acts, deeds, or omissions, prior to date of execution of agreement nor will be required to attend any suits, cases, litigations, or answer any notices from any Statutory Authorities, in connection with such proceedings. Clauses 6.2 and 6.3 stipulate that the providen ...
bombay high court (aurangabad bench)
The Village Grampanchayat and Others Vs The State of Maharashtra and Others
.... s to declare and conduct election programme. 7. If that be so, in our case, the election process had commenced on 3.7.2007. Election programme was declared, had commenced and Code of Conduct had become applicable w.e.f. 22.8.2007. The impugned notification was issued on 16.8.2007 which was before ...
bombay high court (aurangabad bench)
Uday Jondhale Vs The State of Maharashtra and Others
.... malpractice against the petitioner. It only shows that the report from the Examination / Assessment Center was received regarding malpractice and, therefore, the petitioner was called upon to respond to the said communication regarding malpractice committed by him. In our considered view, this s ...
bombay high court (aurangabad bench)
Akanksha International Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
.... rights they confer on the petitioner. The petitioner has produced the Assignment Agreement executed on 17.1.2007 between Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (ARCIL) and M/s Akanksha International which is the present petitioner. It is stated in the preamble that the State Bank of India had ...
bombay high court (aurangabad bench)
Get In Touch With Us
We are here to help. Want to learn more about our services? Please get in touch, we'd love to hear from you!
