2011 (9) TMI 1044

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... R.M. LODHA, JJ. JUDGEMENT For the Petitioner : Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, Attorney General,Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv.,Mr. R.A. Malandkar, Adv.,Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv.,Mr. Bhupesh Kr. Pathak, Adv.,Mrs. Meera Mathur, Adv.,Ms. A.V. Patil, Adv. For the Respondent : Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Milind Sathe, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Ranjit Shetty, Adv.,Ms. Hemlata Jain, Adv.,Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Adv., Mr. M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No.2 & 4 respectively and demand is made against all members of Petitioner No.1 to whom similar demand is made in cases of leases which do not provide for consent from the Respondent No.2" In view of the statement made by Mr. Sathe, it is clarified that the judgment of the Bombay High Court shall remain confined to the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the writ petitioners 2 and 4 only. It ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment shall remain confined to the quashing of the demand of premium for the assignment(s) made in favour of  the writ petitioners (respondents herein). The special leave petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. SLP (C) No. 16636 of 2011 Mr. Milind Sathe, senior advocate appearing for the respondents, states that the demand of the writ petitioners woul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with the aforesaid observation and direction. SLP (C) No. 16709 of 2011Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, advocate appearing for the respondent, states that the demand of the writ petitioner (respondent) would remain confined to prayer clause (A), which is as under:"(A) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ direction or or....