Bombay High Court
AO/33/2005 of NALIN VADILAL PAREKH AND ORS. Vs M/S.HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED on 29 December 2004
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1614 OF 2004 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1614 OF 2004 CIVIL APPLICATION
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1614 OF 2004
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1614 OF 2004
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1614 OF 2004
IN
IN
A.O.ST. 33130 of 2004F 1991.
A.O.ST. 33130 of 2004F 1991.
Nalin Vadilal Parekh
& Ors. .. Applicant
vs.
Hindustan Lever Ltd. .. Respondents.
Shri Janak Dwarkadas Sr. Counsel with Mr.
H.N.Thakore, Ms. Sona Singh & Ms. Agnes A.
barudia i/b. M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associates, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.J.B.Chinai with Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b. Ms. Crawford Bayley & Co, Advocate for the Respondent.CORAM : S.R.SATHE, J.
DATED : 31st December, 2004.
DATED : 31st December, 2004.
P.C. :
P.C. :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The learned Advocate for the Respondent submitted that during the course of arguments through mistake it was submitted that 97% voters have supported in postal ballot. But in fact the said percentage is 94% and as such necessary correction be made in the order passed on 29.12.2004. Other side has no objection for the same. However, the Respondent is directed to file necessary affidavit to that effect.
(S.R.Sathe,J.)