REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED Appellant

V/S

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SALMON V. DUNCOMBE [REFERRED TO]
WHITNER V. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [REFERRED TO]
KUNWAR LAL SINGH VS. CENTRAL PROVINCES AND BERAR [REFERRED TO]
BBC ENTERPRISES V. HI-TECH XTRAVISION LTD. [REFERRED TO]
NOKES V. DONCASTER AMALGAMATED COLLIERIES [REFERRED TO]
PVE V. MINISTER FOR LANDS FOR NSW [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS VS. V G ROW:THE UNION OF INDIA AND THE STATE OF TRAVANCORE COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SUBODH GOPAL BOSE [REFERRED TO]
EXPRESS NEWSPAPER PRIVATE LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VS. S TEJA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUBAR DAYAL JAI PARKASH CHITTARMAL RAMDAYAL NATHUMALL HARIKISHAN DASS DASWANDI RAM BANARSI DASS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
TRIMBAK DAMODHAR RAIPURKAR VS. ASSARAM HIRAMAN PATIL [REFERRED TO]
GURSAHAI SAIGAL IN ALL APPEALS VS. COMMISSIONER OF I T PUNJAB IN ALL APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH BHARTIYA HOTEL VS. MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN PATHAK RAM PARKASH MANCHANDA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN KUMAR SINGHANIA MAHESH D PATHAK NITIN D WAKANKAR NAVNEET GOEL S VENKATESWAR DINESH KUMAR SINGH ROHIT CHOUDHARY ANIL KANT R MANJUNATHASWAMY ARUN KUMAR RAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
R S RAGHUNATH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
SULTANA BEGUM VS. PREM CHAND JAIN [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. HINDUSTAN BULK CARRIERS [REFERRED TO]
BAKHTAWAR TRUST VS. M D NARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
CULCUTTA GUJARAT EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
JAIKUMARI AMARBAHADURSINGH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ PETITION NO. 122 OF 2018:-

(2.) As a corollary and incidental to the main relief, the petitioners are praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature thereof or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records of the impugned notice dated 26th December, 2017 (annexure 'A' to the petition) and after considering the legality, validity and propriety thereof to quash and set aside the same. By the unamended and the amended paragraphs, the essential and factual position is narrated in the following terms:-

(3.) The petitioner No.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1913 and carrying on business of manufacturing, distribution and sale of consumer goods in India. The petitioner No.2 is a shareholder of Petitioner No.1 Company and is a necessary party. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra through its Law and Judiciary Department. The Law and Judiciary Department of Respondent No.1 is entrusted with the responsibility to formulate policies, supporting and monitoring programmes and coordinating the activities of various Ministries of the State Government and other nodal authorities insofar as they relate to law and judiciary issues in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No.1 is a 'State' and amenable to the Writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The Respondent No.2 is the Collector of Mumbai City having the jurisdiction over the property in question. The Respondent No.3 is HDFC and is the acquirer of the rights from the Petitioner. The Respondent No.3 is a proforma Respondent and no reliefs are claimed against Respondent No. The Respondent No.4 is the Superintendent of Land Records (City Mumbai), who has authority to mutate the land records for the city of Mumbai.

Click here to view full judgment.

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address