Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Sunil Daulat Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 December, 2013

Laxmibai Yadavrao Panchal vs The Additional Collector And Others on 5 May, 2016

Said situation had also been considered and weighed in the situation of Sunil Patil's case (supra), decision given in Hulle's case (supra) had been taken into account and the case was decided by the Hon'ble Single Judge. Having regard to aforesaid observations, one may not be able to say that it is not a judgment for it qualifies to be one, having regard that that taking into account facts with legal principles as applicable to these facts and the law governing the circumstances it had been considered that the relief claimed based thereon could be granted. As such, there appears to be little substance in the contention of learned advocate for the respondents.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - S P Deshmukh - Full Document

Laxmibai Motiram Konke vs The Collector Nanded And Others on 17 February, 2020

and Sunil Daulat Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others , decided in Writ Petition No.3419 of 2013 on 4th December, 2013 (Coram: S. S. Shinde, J.), submits that from the contents of notice, which has been issued to the Petitioners under Sections 7 and 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, it is manifest that there is no mention of any specific charges / points, which are required to be ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2020 07:16:18 ::: 38-WP-13656-2017 -4- answered by the Petitioners.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Rekha Rajesh Dadajwar vs The Collector Nanded And Others on 17 February, 2020

and Sunil Daulat Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others , decided in Writ Petition No.3419 of 2013 on 4th December, 2013 (Coram: S. S. Shinde, J.), submits that from the contents of notice, which has been issued to the Petitioners under Sections 7 and 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, it is manifest that there is no mention of any specific charges / points, which are required to be ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2020 07:16:04 ::: 38-WP-13656-2017 -4- answered by the Petitioners.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Kalubai Kishanrao Sonkamble vs The Collector Nanded And Others on 17 February, 2020

and Sunil Daulat Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others , decided in Writ Petition No.3419 of 2013 on 4th December, 2013 (Coram: S. S. Shinde, J.), submits that from the contents of notice, which has been issued to the Petitioners under Sections 7 and 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, it is manifest that there is no mention of any specific charges / points, which are required to be ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2020 07:16:12 ::: 38-WP-13656-2017 -4- answered by the Petitioners.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Pushpabai Baban Barse vs The Collctor Nanded And Others on 17 February, 2020

and Sunil Daulat Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others , decided in Writ Petition No.3419 of 2013 on 4th December, 2013 (Coram: S. S. Shinde, J.), submits that from the contents of notice, which has been issued to the Petitioners under Sections 7 and 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, it is manifest that there is no mention of any specific charges / points, which are required to be ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2020 07:16:01 ::: 38-WP-13656-2017 -4- answered by the Petitioners.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Chimaji Sitaram Shinde vs The Collector Nanded And Others on 17 February, 2020

and Sunil Daulat Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others , decided in Writ Petition No.3419 of 2013 on 4th December, 2013 (Coram: S. S. Shinde, J.), submits that from the contents of notice, which has been issued to the Petitioners under Sections 7 and 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, it is manifest that there is no mention of any specific charges / points, which are required to be ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2020 07:16:08 ::: 38-WP-13656-2017 -4- answered by the Petitioners.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Shakuntala Digambar Pulkanthe vs The Collector Nanded And Others on 17 February, 2020

and Sunil Daulat Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others , decided in Writ Petition No.3419 of 2013 on 4th December, 2013 (Coram: S. S. Shinde, J.), submits that from the contents of notice, which has been issued to the Petitioners under Sections 7 and 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, it is manifest that there is no mention of any specific charges / points, which are required to be ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2020 07:15:58 ::: 38-WP-13656-2017 -4- answered by the Petitioners.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Lalita Yashwant Arjune vs The Collector Nanded And Other on 17 February, 2020

and Sunil Daulat Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others , decided in Writ Petition No.3419 of 2013 on 4th December, 2013 (Coram: S. S. Shinde, J.), submits that from the contents of notice, which has been issued to the Petitioners under Sections 7 and 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, it is manifest that there is no mention of any specific charges / points, which are required to be ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2020 07:16:15 ::: 38-WP-13656-2017 -4- answered by the Petitioners.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document
1   2 Next