Jwala Pratap Singh (Shri) vs Shri R.D. Mathur on 15 October, 2003
In Shri Sheena Naik v. Shri Lawrence D'Souza (5), wherein Karnataka High Court held that bonafide requirement means something more than a mere wish or desire.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.38 seconds)Documents citing
Sheena Naik vs Lawrence D'Souza on 3 January, 1984
M/S. Chandrika Enterprise vs G. Vittalla Rao on 17 January, 1996
In this regard reference may be made to a decision (Sheena Naik v. Lawrence D'Souza). It has been held therein as follows:--
B.S. Deshpande vs M.R. Mathad on 14 June, 1996
He also placed his reliance on one more decision, in case of SHRI SHEENA NAIK v. SHRI LAWRENCE D'SOUZA, 1984(2) KLJ 63.
Sanjay Alloys (Private) Limited, ... vs V. Ramakrishna on 19 January, 2001
17. There cannot be any dispute regarding this proposition. But the proposition has to be on the basis of the facts proved by way of evidence before the Court. In the absence of evidence mere proposition would not be of any use to the petitioner. In the circumstances in my view all the judgments which are not acceptable on the facts of this case. On the other hand the respondents relies on a judgment of this Court in somewhat identical circumstances in the case of Sheena Naik v Lawrence D'Souza. In para 21 in the said case the Court ruled:
1