Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (1.17 seconds)
Documents citing Barindra Overseas Private Ltd, Through ... vs Shilpa Shares And Securities And Ors on 13 June, 2018

Shri Datta Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 July, 2019

62. Learned counsel for the borrowers made an attempt to distinguish the judgment of this Court in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra) on the ground that the judgment of this Court in case of Pandharinath Rambhau Kavitke (supra) delivered by this Court at an earlier point of time was not cited by the petitioner before this Court in the said judgment in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra). It is submitted that the revision application thus filed by the borrowers were not in existence or could not considered to be on record. The delay in filing such revision application was to be first considered. The borrowers were thus not required to deposit any amount till such time the delay in filing the revision application was condoned. He submits that in any event the borrowers had already deposited a sum of Rs.3,49,26,900/- on the date of the Divisional Joint Registrar entertaining the said application without rendering the application for condonation of delay. The borrowers thus had even otherwise complied with the said provisions of section 154(2A) of the MCS Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

M/S. Tanwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Through ... vs Shri Datta Nagari Sah. Pat Sanstha ... on 2 July, 2019

62. Learned counsel for the borrowers made an attempt to distinguish the judgment of this Court in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra) on the ground that the judgment of this Court in case of Pandharinath Rambhau Kavitke (supra) delivered by this Court at an earlier point of time was not cited by the petitioner before this Court in the said judgment in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra). It is submitted that the revision application thus filed by the borrowers were not in existence or could not considered to be on record. The delay in filing such revision application was to be first considered. The borrowers were thus not required to deposit any amount till such time the delay in filing the revision application was condoned. He submits that in any event the borrowers had already deposited a sum of Rs.3,49,26,900/- on the date of the Divisional Joint Registrar entertaining the said application without rendering the application for condonation of delay. The borrowers thus had even otherwise complied with the said provisions of section 154(2A) of the MCS Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Shri Datta Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 July, 2019

62. Learned counsel for the borrowers made an attempt to distinguish the judgment of this Court in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra) on the ground that the judgment of this Court in case of Pandharinath Rambhau Kavitke (supra) delivered by this Court at an earlier point of time was not cited by the petitioner before this Court in the said judgment in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra). It is submitted that the revision application thus filed by the borrowers were not in existence or could not considered to be on record. The delay in filing such revision application was to be first considered. The borrowers were thus not required to deposit any amount till such time the delay in filing the revision application was condoned. He submits that in any event the borrowers had already deposited a sum of Rs.3,49,26,900/- on the date of the Divisional Joint Registrar entertaining the said application without rendering the application for condonation of delay. The borrowers thus had even otherwise complied with the said provisions of section 154(2A) of the MCS Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Shri Datta Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha ... vs Anil Rameshbhai Tanwani on 2 July, 2019

62. Learned counsel for the borrowers made an attempt to distinguish the judgment of this Court in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra) on the ground that the judgment of this Court in case of Pandharinath Rambhau Kavitke (supra) delivered by this Court at an earlier point of time was not cited by the petitioner before this Court in the said judgment in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra). It is submitted that the revision application thus filed by the borrowers were not in existence or could not considered to be on record. The delay in filing such revision application was to be first considered. The borrowers were thus not required to deposit any amount till such time the delay in filing the revision application was condoned. He submits that in any event the borrowers had already deposited a sum of Rs.3,49,26,900/- on the date of the Divisional Joint Registrar entertaining the said application without rendering the application for condonation of delay. The borrowers thus had even otherwise complied with the said provisions of section 154(2A) of the MCS Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

M/S. Tanwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd vs The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Op. ... on 2 July, 2019

62. Learned counsel for the borrowers made an attempt to distinguish the judgment of this Court in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra) on the ground that the judgment of this Court in case of Pandharinath Rambhau Kavitke (supra) delivered by this Court at an earlier point of time was not cited by the petitioner before this Court in the said judgment in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra). It is submitted that the revision application thus filed by the borrowers were not in existence or could not considered to be on record. The delay in filing such revision application was to be first considered. The borrowers were thus not required to deposit any amount till such time the delay in filing the revision application was condoned. He submits that in any event the borrowers had already deposited a sum of Rs.3,49,26,900/- on the date of the Divisional Joint Registrar entertaining the said application without rendering the application for condonation of delay. The borrowers thus had even otherwise complied with the said provisions of section 154(2A) of the MCS Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Shri Datta Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 July, 2019

62. Learned counsel for the borrowers made an attempt to distinguish the judgment of this Court in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra) on the ground that the judgment of this Court in case of Pandharinath Rambhau Kavitke (supra) delivered by this Court at an earlier point of time was not cited by the petitioner before this Court in the said judgment in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra). It is submitted that the revision application thus filed by the borrowers were not in existence or could not considered to be on record. The delay in filing such revision application was to be first considered. The borrowers were thus not required to deposit any amount till such time the delay in filing the revision application was condoned. He submits that in any event the borrowers had already deposited a sum of Rs.3,49,26,900/- on the date of the Divisional Joint Registrar entertaining the said application without rendering the application for condonation of delay. The borrowers thus had even otherwise complied with the said provisions of section 154(2A) of the MCS Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Amar Rameshbhai Tanwani And Anr vs The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Op. ... on 2 July, 2019

62. Learned counsel for the borrowers made an attempt to distinguish the judgment of this Court in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra) on the ground that the judgment of this Court in case of Pandharinath Rambhau Kavitke (supra) delivered by this Court at an earlier point of time was not cited by the petitioner before this Court in the said judgment in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra). It is submitted that the revision application thus filed by the borrowers were not in existence or could not considered to be on record. The delay in filing such revision application was to be first considered. The borrowers were thus not required to deposit any amount till such time the delay in filing the revision application was condoned. He submits that in any event the borrowers had already deposited a sum of Rs.3,49,26,900/- on the date of the Divisional Joint Registrar entertaining the said application without rendering the application for condonation of delay. The borrowers thus had even otherwise complied with the said provisions of section 154(2A) of the MCS Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Shri Datta Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha ... vs Tanwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Through ... on 2 July, 2019

62. Learned counsel for the borrowers made an attempt to distinguish the judgment of this Court in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra) on the ground that the judgment of this Court in case of Pandharinath Rambhau Kavitke (supra) delivered by this Court at an earlier point of time was not cited by the petitioner before this Court in the said judgment in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra). It is submitted that the revision application thus filed by the borrowers were not in existence or could not considered to be on record. The delay in filing such revision application was to be first considered. The borrowers were thus not required to deposit any amount till such time the delay in filing the revision application was condoned. He submits that in any event the borrowers had already deposited a sum of Rs.3,49,26,900/- on the date of the Divisional Joint Registrar entertaining the said application without rendering the application for condonation of delay. The borrowers thus had even otherwise complied with the said provisions of section 154(2A) of the MCS Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Shri Datta Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha ... vs Anil Rameshbhai Tanwani on 2 July, 2019

62. Learned counsel for the borrowers made an attempt to distinguish the judgment of this Court in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra) on the ground that the judgment of this Court in case of Pandharinath Rambhau Kavitke (supra) delivered by this Court at an earlier point of time was not cited by the petitioner before this Court in the said judgment in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra). It is submitted that the revision application thus filed by the borrowers were not in existence or could not considered to be on record. The delay in filing such revision application was to be first considered. The borrowers were thus not required to deposit any amount till such time the delay in filing the revision application was condoned. He submits that in any event the borrowers had already deposited a sum of Rs.3,49,26,900/- on the date of the Divisional Joint Registrar entertaining the said application without rendering the application for condonation of delay. The borrowers thus had even otherwise complied with the said provisions of section 154(2A) of the MCS Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

M/S. Tanwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd vs The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Op. ... on 2 July, 2019

62. Learned counsel for the borrowers made an attempt to distinguish the judgment of this Court in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra) on the ground that the judgment of this Court in case of Pandharinath Rambhau Kavitke (supra) delivered by this Court at an earlier point of time was not cited by the petitioner before this Court in the said judgment in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra). It is submitted that the revision application thus filed by the borrowers were not in existence or could not considered to be on record. The delay in filing such revision application was to be first considered. The borrowers were thus not required to deposit any amount till such time the delay in filing the revision application was condoned. He submits that in any event the borrowers had already deposited a sum of Rs.3,49,26,900/- on the date of the Divisional Joint Registrar entertaining the said application without rendering the application for condonation of delay. The borrowers thus had even otherwise complied with the said provisions of section 154(2A) of the MCS Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document
1   2 3 Next