Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)
Shri Hamal Mathadi Kamgar Majoor ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 3 July, 2024
cites
Article 215 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960
The Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal And Other Manual Workers (Regulation Of Employment And Welfare) Act, 1969
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar & Anr on 24 April, 1996
11. Mr. Jahagirdar would further submit that even the conduct
of the applicant - petitioner in preferring the review application through
a different advocate and not the same advocate who had addressed
this Court has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in the matter of
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another V. N. Raju Reddiar and
another; (1997) 9 SCC 736.
Daman Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 4 April, 1985
12. Mr. Jahagirdar would submit that no arguments were
advanced by learned advocate who was representing the applicant in
respect of these two prayers and unless it is demonstrated otherwise, it
7 RA / 154 / 2024
should be regarded as having been consciously left out and cannot be
allowed to be re-opened. The prayers which were not granted can
certainly be regarded as having been refused entitling the applicant -
petitioner to challenge the judgment and order, however, he cannot
resort to remedy of review. To buttress his such submission, he would
refer to Daman Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others;
(1985) 2 SCC 670.
Section 114 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Shantilal Manganlal And Anr vs Chunnilal Ranchoddas Through Lrs. And ... on 24 July, 1984
14. At the first blush, submission of Mr. Shermale is attractive
regarding the original prayers having been left out of consideration.
However, a careful reading of the entire judgment and order and
8 RA / 154 / 2024
particularly in the context of the disputes being raised in this petition
coupled with the reasons and observations of this Court in paragraphs
no. 5 and 19 of the imugned judgment and order are indeed eloquent
enough to reach a conclusion that this Court was even not in favour of
the applicant - petitioner to the extent of original prayers whereby it
was putting up a challenge to the work allotted by respondent no. 3 -
Collector to respondent no. 5 - labour society and to the extent of
Sangamner taluka.
1