Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.35 seconds)
Habibullah Farhatullah vs Ramchandra Vitthal Dongre And Ors on 21 November, 2018 cites

Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market ... vs Sharafatullah Hafiz Inayatulla & Anr on 15 February, 2000

160. The petitioner thus being not at all eligible even to make an application for such gala could not claim parity with other claimants and could not have claimed precedence over the other claimants on the ground that the petitioner had applied for allotment of such gala first and was thus eligible under the said term 'Early Bird Norms' suggested by the learned commissioner. In my view, the petitioner was not being similarly situated with the other claimants whose claims were considered by the respondent no.1, case of the petitioner could not have been considered by the respondent no.1 even under the said 'Early Bird Norms' suggested by the learned commissioner. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee & Anr. (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Hanumant Murlidhar Gavade vs Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market & ... on 7 December, 2011

36. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the APMC thus itself having taken a stand that the respondent no.5 herein was not eligible for allotment of large Gala having not satisfied the norms suggested by the learned commissioner and this Court directing the APMC by an order dated 4 th March 2003 that as and when 12 more Galas were constructed by the APMC, the 3 applicants including the respondent no.5 should be considered in accordance with law and as per the guidelines laid down by the learned commissioner, the APMC has considered the application of the respondent no.5 illegally and allotted large Gala i.e.F-158 to the respondent no.5 contrary to the norms suggested by the learned commissioner and also contrary to the order dated 4 th March 2003 passed by the Division Bench of this Court and the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hanumant Murlidhar Gavade (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Ors vs Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy on 26 February, 1970

190. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Ors. (supra) in support of the submission that since the order passed by the Director of Marketing has not been challenged by any party or by APMC, the order has attained finality and thus the plea now raised by the respondent no.1 that the petitioner was not eligible is barred by principles of res judicata.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 289 - J C Shah - Full Document

Mahadeo Ramchandra Kamble And Others vs Kalyan Laluji Dongre on 3 October, 2018

53. Insofar as Writ Petition No.8959 of 2014 filed by M/s.Ramchandra V.Dongre is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the said M/s.Ramchandra V.Dongre is not eligible as per the norms suggested by the ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2018 01:12:48 ::: kvm 36/125 WP8959.14 learned commissioner. He submits that the Affidavit filed by APMC in Writ Petition No.234 of 2004 relied upon by the petitioner was filed by Mr.Ramchandra V. Dongre as a proprietor of Ramchandra V.Dongre, proprietary concern. He invited my attention to the verification in the said Writ Petition No.234 of 2004 and would submit that the said writ petition was verified by Mr.Ramchandra V.Dongre in his individual capacity.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - S B Shukre - Full Document
1