Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.42 seconds)
Federation Of Churchgate Residents vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater on 14 March, 2014 cites

State Of Maharashtra vs Public Concern For Governance Trust & ... on 4 January, 2007

7 We find that in the absence of erstwhile Commissioner being made a party respondent in these proceedings it is impossible for him S.R.JOSHI 19 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:57:10 ::: pil-54-2012-judgment.sxw to defend himself and explain the circumstances which would negate the allegations of mala fide and/or malice in exercise of his powers under Regulation 67(2)(b)(iii) of DCR 1991. No allegations of malice in fact can be sustained unless a party concerned against whom such allegations are made is a party to the proceeding. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust and ors.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 78 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Dr. Anahita Pandole vs State Of Maharashtra, Urban ... on 5 May, 2008

In fact another Division Bench of this Court in Anahita Pandole (Dr) vs. State of Maharashtra 2004(6) Bom. C.R. 246 has held that where the precincts are notified (as in this case) are to be considered as relevant material under Section 46 of the MRTP Act before granting the special permission under 67(2)(iii)(b) of DCR 1991. Therefore the Special permission dated 12 April 2012 of the erstwhile Commissioner is not sustainable in law as he has not had due regard to various factors as provided for under Section 46 of the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 4 - S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next