Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.32 seconds)
Mr. Rajendra Bhaskarrao Sonawane vs State Of Maharashtra Through Principal ... on 1 August, 2023 cites

Mr. Sunil Subhash Ekhande vs State Of Maharashtra Through Principal ... on 28 June, 2023

1st August 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2023 06:35:45 ::: Sunil Subhash Ekhande v State of Maharashtra & Ors 902-aswp-11525-2018-J+V4.doc from doing so, the appellant gave up the plea of waiver and deposited the amount which clearly indicates acceptance on its part of its liability to pay especially when it was only upon such payment that it could be permitted to avail of the migration package. Allowing the appellant at this stage to question the demand raised under the migration package would amount to permitting the appellant to accept what was favourable to it and reject what was not. The appellant cannot approbate and reprobate.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - N K Gokhale - Full Document

Satish Ganpatrao Patil And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 31 March, 2015

11. Ms Diwan, learned AGP, relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court (Mohit Shah, CJ (as he then was) and Ravindra Ghuge, J) in Satish Ganpatrao Patil & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors.7 This decision is dated 31st March 2015 and therefore pre-dates all six decisions relied on by Mr Limaye. The Satish Patil judgment deals in detail with the legality and consequences of the claimed 6 Writ Petition No. 14935 of 2017 and connected Petitions. 7 MANU/MH/0547/2015.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 25 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (K.V) Mumbai vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 28 November, 2007

13. The orders prior to Satish Patil lay down no law and have no discernible ratio, and therefore constitute no binding precedent. On any fundamental principle of stare decisis, 8 the attempt to wholly elide the jurisprudentially binding effect of Satish Patil on all later benches of coordinate strength cannot succeed. For it is well settled that a decision is a binding precedent only for what it actually decides.9 In Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (KV), Mumbai v State of Maharashtra & Ors,10 the Supreme Court said:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 142 - M Katju - Full Document
1   2 3 Next