CiteTEXT
...the orders of the Prothonotary and Senior Master in exercise of powers under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.2. The learned c...Judge of this court on a petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, have been rejected under...
...February, 2015, has been dismissed for non-compliance with the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.2. The Registry of this court is empowered, in term...Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, operative from 26 November, 2015, which is sought to be recalled. The application to recall it has been filed on 24...1. Heard Mr. Ramamurthy appearing in support of this notice of motion. The appeal of the appellant, filed in this court to challenge the order of a learned Single Judge dated 13...
...rejected the petition on 26 March 2008 under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. The petitioner has not challenged ...and Senior Master rejecting the petition under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.9. A perusal of th...dated 26 March 2008 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980....
...presentation of a Suit, grants time to the Plaintiffs / Petitioners to pay Court fees at a later date, the Prothonotary has informed me that he is doing so in exercise of his power under Rule 986 of the Bombay ...Advocate would have 30 days' time to remove or challenge such objection failing which the Plaint may be rejected under Rule 986 of Bombay High Court Original Side Rules. However,...Prothonotary and Senior Master are provided for by Rule 131 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules. Except these matters, where there is a delegation of the Chamber Judge's powers...
..., Income Tax Appeal (Lodging) No.1555 of 2014.4. That Chamber Order requested the Prothonotary & Senior Master to recall the earlier direction issued under Rule 986 of the Bombay ...-04 being Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1555 of 2014 was rejected on 15th January, 2015 by the Prothonotary and Senior Master under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original ...comply with the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the restoration is not automatic and the Registrar (Judl.) applies his mind on a case to case basis. If the restoration is sought belatedly or...
...Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980?2. Writ Petition (L) Nos. 3016 of 2014 and 672 of 2014 were dismis...Court under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 for non-removal of office objections. On oral requests, the...Court has made rules inter alia for regulating suits and proceedings arising in its ordinary and extraordinary original jurisdiction, called the Bombay High Court (Original Side)...
...or before 27 September 2017, failing which the said application would stand rejected under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. Since the objec...passed by the Company Court and in the alternative, for extension of time to clear office objections with respect to Company Application (L) No. 3 of 2017. Company Application (L) No. 4 of 2019 was an...intervention application filed by the Appellant in Company Application No. 1 of 2021.
3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the Original Appellants in Company Appeal No. 102 of...
...dated 18-9-2014 was issued. Meaning thereby, if the appellants do not come forward to comply with the procedural rules, by virtue of The Bombay High Court (Original Side) ...explanation as to why in an Appeal filed on 22-1-2014 to challenge an order dated 18-4-2013, no steps were taken to comply with the procedural rules. Caution or warning in the form of a conditional order...can be dismissed for want of procedural compliance. The Registry then need not place these matters before the Court, but has been empowered to dismiss them...
...in Company Application (L) No. 3 of 2017 be removed on or before 27thSeptember 2017, failing which the said application would stand rejected under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (...
Kanchan P Dhuri 1 / 12 APP-L-12210-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION....
2. Company Application No. 1 of 2021 was filed by Respondent No.1 seeking recall of the Orders dated 11thJanuary 2018 and 7thFebruary 2018 passed by the Company Court...
....
27. The present Appeal was rejected by the Prothonotary & Senior Master vide his Order dated 24 January 2019 under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (...that the Company Petition was advertised. Once there is an advertisement and there is a fnal order on the Company Petitionr thenr the scheme of the Company Court Rules has also to be complied with...Company and the Respondent, without the Company Court or the Division Bench being satisfed that there are no creditors, secured and/or unsecured, or contributories, other than original Petitioner of the...
...an order, the Appeal under Section 260A was filed on 15th May, 2014.8. There is a specific provision in the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, ...field with regard to the ambit and scope of powers of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court, particularly under Rules 985 and 986 of the Bombay High Court (...initial order of the Prothonotary and Senior Master invoking Rules 985 and 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1960. We post the Chambe...
...following observation:“2 The petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn, subject to payment of Court fees pursuance to the amendment of the Bombay Court Fees Act”...:“26 Institution of suits. (1) Every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed.”9. Rule 45 of High Court (Original Sides) ...objection on 3.12.2009 The petitioner removed the same on 8.2.2010 Even on that date, there was no office objection about the Court fee in view of the amendment to the Bombay Court Fees...
...was executed at Delhi and transmitted for performance to Bombay, it does not constitute a cause of action to give rise to the respondent to lay the suit on the original side of the Delhi High Court. The...1979. The respondents had filed a suit on the original side of the Delhi High Court for perpetual injunction against the appellant from enforcing bank guarantee dated 16-7-1977. The learned Single Judge...original side of the High Court of Delhi and direct to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court.5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Division ...
...Bombay High Court by and on behalf of the pavement dwellers claiming reliefs similar to those claimed in the instant batch of writ petitions. The pavement dwellers had conceded in the High Court that...preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Bombay Municipal Corporation that in view of what was conceded by the petitioner pavement dwellers before the High Court, they were estopped from contending..., notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners had conceded in the Bombay High Court that they have no fundamental right to construct hutments on pavements and that they will not object to their...
....3. At this stage, on 21-6-1972, the appellants filed Short Cause Suit No. 491 of 1972 only against the Bank on the original side of the Bombay High Court praying for the.... On 17-1-1983, the Bombay High Court dismissed the suit for non-joinder of parties, holding that the contractor was a necessary party for deciding the issue of default and the bank's consequent...action and the dismissal of the former on a technical ground could not act as a bar against the latter. On 9-7-1993, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the decision impugned herein dismissed...
...Rules framed thereunder. Before the High Court source of the power of the State to issue the said GOMs No. 86 dated 12-3-2001 was traced to Sections 182 and 170 of the 1983 Act as also Article 162 of the...of the work. We are of the considered view that the directions issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal warranting our interference. The order of the High Court is, therefore, set side...Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby and whereunder several writ appeals filed by the appellants herein and writ petitions filed by the private respondents were disposed of...
...terms of Rule 3 of the U.P Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. The order of termination was challenged by the appellant before the U.P Public Service Tribunal which, by...High Court through a writ petition which was allowed on 27-11-1997 and the judgment passed by the Tribunal was set aside.5. Learned counsel for the appellant has..., came to the conclusion that the order was punitive in nature. This finding, it is contended, could not have been disturbed by the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...
...(1980) 1 SCC 416, AIR 1980 SC 1008, (1979) 3 SCR 1217. It is not necessary for us to deal with this contention as the High Court on me...of 1972 is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated July 7, 1971 upholding the constitutional validity of sub-section (6) of Section 7 of the Act and sub-section (1) of...Section 12 of the Act. Civil Appeal No. 2108 of 1972 is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated July 27, 1971 upholding the increase in the rate of market fee from 13 paise...
...death awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court needs to be substituted by life imprisonment, literally for life or in any case for a period far in excess of fourteen years. The Court in...Code of Criminal Procedure (Criminal Reference No. 6 of 2005) were heard together by the Karnataka High Court. The High Court confirmed the conviction and the death sentence awarded to the appellant and....6. Against the High Court judgment the appellant has come to this Court in this appeal. The appeal was earlier heard by a Bench of two Judges. Both the Honourable Judges unanimously upheld the...
...High Court by its judgment and order dated October 8, 1980 quashed the impugned order of the State Government dated December 20, 1978 making the ad hoc promotions and issued a direction that the...Executive Engineers under Rule 6(b). It is said that the High Court failed to appreciate that Respondents 1 and 2 were not recruited as Temporary Engineers under the instructions contained in the Manual...of the expression “Class II Service” as defined in Rule 2(5), as amended in 1975. Secondly, the High Court failed to take into account the fact that Respondents 1 and 2 became members of Class II...