Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Procter & Gamble India Limited And Anr. vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 27 September, 1993

Khandelwal Trading Company And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 5 March, 2004

16. Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is not possible to accept that the communication dated 12-44991 issued on the basis of the Circular dated 4-3-1991 by the Commissioner, State Excise, is sustainable in law. In the facts and circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned A.G.P. that since the remedy is available for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner/firm by filing an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 137(2) of the B.P. Act, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - S T Kharche - Full Document

Ghanshyam S/O Chandumal Harwani And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 8 June, 2007

6. Shri Agrawal, Advocate has contended that the preliminary objection raised by respondent No. 2 on the ground of availability of alternate remedy in the shape of an appeal under Section 47 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act is misconceived and said objection cannot be raised as Rule has already been issued in the matter. He has relied upon judgment of this Court reported at , Procter and Gamble India Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay in support of his stand. He further states that in view of clear provision in Rule 6.7.2, as nothing has been communicated to petitioners by planning authority i.e. respondent No. 2 within statutory period of 60 days from submission of building plan, the building plan is deemed to have been sanctioned and petitioners are entitled to raise construction according to it. He argues that communication dated 19-11-2003 allegedly forwarded by respondent No. 2 to Architect is not genuine document and cannot be relied upon because it has been prepared later on. He invites attention to said communication to state that none out of total 8 reasons given therein for alleged rejection of building plan is correct and legally sustainable. He has dealt with each reason individually for demonstrating its either incorrectness or irrelevant nature. He further states that development work of Jaistambha square is already over and plot of petitioners is situated at a distance from said square and did not in any way obstruct the beautification thereof. He further states that reason put forth that plot of petitioners is meant for Public Road is incorrect and in Development Plan it is shown in blue-colour i.e. for commercial purposes. He further states that mere mention that it is public road in property card is not sufficient particularly when Government has allotted said plot to petitioners since 1956 and lease has been made permanent with consent of respondent No. 2. He points out that earlier 3 rejections of building plan were not on account of said plot being reserved for road. Defence of public road is raised for the first time in affidavit and same cannot be considered by this Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs City And Industrial Development ... on 28 July, 2004

The judgment next relied upon is a single Bench judgment in Procter and Gamble India Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay reported in 2004 (I) Mh.L.J. page 406. There also petitions were pending since 1993 and were decided in the year 2003 i.e. after pendency of 10 years. All these judgments cannot be applied in the present case because here the pendency is less than three years.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 14 - V G Palshikar - Full Document

Spie Capag vs Union Of India on 12 August, 2008

b. In the case of Proctor & Gamble India Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 2004 (1) Mh.L.J.406, Mh.L.J.406 this Court has held that "........it is well settled that once the Petitions are admitted for final hearing, without any reservation of right in favour maintainability of the of Respondents the Petitions to raise on plea account of non of any such alternative remedy being available to the Petitioners, the Respondents cannot be allowed to non-suit the Petitioners, at the final stage, merely on such a technical plea and more particularly when the Petitioners have a good case on merits. Applying the same rule to the case in hand, the objection relating to the availability of alternative remedy is rejected."
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Procter And Gamble India Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 30 September, 2003

9. Considering the decision of the learned Single Judge in Procter and Gamble's case and the confirmation thereof on facts of that case, by the decision of the Division Bench in Appeal No. 916 of 1993 and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to above, the contentions of the respondent-Corporation regarding the classification of the products of the petitioners as confectionery items cannot be sustained and the impugned orders in that regard are liable to be set aside and the products of the petitioners are to be held as not liable to be so classified and are therefore not liable for payment of octroi duty, being medicines as were earlier classified. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. In case the petitioners have deposited and/or paid any amount towards the claim made by the respondent-Corporation under the impugned orders, the petitioners shall be entitled for refund of the said amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of demand for such refund. Order accordingly.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document
1