Mumbai Court August 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Harshadrai O. Mody Vs. Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom125; 2002(4)ALLMR1; 2002(6)BomCR518; (2003)1BOMLR780; [2003]115CompCas97(Bom); 2002(4)MhLj492
H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rana, the senior counsel for the appellant. Mr. Tulzapurkar and Mr. Shetye appear for the Respondents in both these matters. 2. The first of these two appeals seeks to challenge the order dated 30-4-2002 passed by a learned Single Judge on the Chamber Summons taken out by the appellant for a direction against the 1st respondent-nationalised bank in an execution application moved by the bank against the appellant. The Chamber Summons sought a direction that the execution application filed by the 1st respondent-bank may not be transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The 1st respondent-bank has taken a decree against the appellant in the High Court of justice, Queen's Bench Division in England for an amount of Rs. 2,47,82,743.40. The Execution Application was filed along with the certified copy on 6th May, 1998. The Debts Recovery Tribunal was constituted on 16-7-1999 under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ('the Act'...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Developmen ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ2063; AIR2002Bom515; 2002(4)ALLMR676; 2002(5)BomCR434; 2002(4)MhLj797
1. The Union of India has filed this writ petition seeking an authority to pronouncement of law be operated within the State of Maharashtra in relation to the provisions of the Railways, the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.2. The undisputed facts giving rise to this petition are very brief and few. The Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd., respondent No. 1 (herein) filed Special Civil Suit No. 138 of 1985 against the Union of India as the owner of the defendant-Railways and the respondent No. 2 i.e. M/s Ota Kandla Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham, Gujarat. The suit was valued for damages, and compensation at Rs. 8 lakhs. The suit was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, who transferred it to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bombay in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.3. On 18th September, 1990 the respondent No. 1 made an application to the Railway Claims Tribunal for transferring the case to the Civil C...
Chandrakant Shankar Sapkal and anr. Vs. Anil Balbhim Khatavkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR409; 2003(1)BomCR58; 2002(4)MhLj889
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 2. The petitioners/defendants are challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below. The trial Court, by order, dated 6-6-2001, passed in R. C. Suit No. 10 of 2001, allowed the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff to restrain the petitioners from carrying out construction in the suit property. The appeal filed against the same being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2001 came to be dismissed by the lower Appellate Court on 25-9-2001. Hence the present revision application. 3. The suit property comprises of a piece of land alleged to be a common passage and forming part of City Survey No. 196, situated in Village Medha, Taluka Jawali, District Satara. It is the case of the respondent that a plot of land admeasuring 47 sq.mtr. was purchased by him by a deed of sale dated 19-12-2000 from one Suresh Dharashivkar and along with the said...
Laxminarayan S/O Narayandas Jaju Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR252; 2003(1)BomCR35; 2003(1)MhLj434
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition challenges exercise of suo motu powers by the State Government under Section 45 of The Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, (the Act, for short). The only issue which needs determination is : whether the State Government has exercised the powers conferred on it by Section 45 of the Act, within the prescribed period of three years, as contemplated in Section 45 of the Act. Section 45 of the Act, reads as follows :'(1) In all matters connected with this Act, the State Government shall have the same authority and control over the officers authorised under Section 27, the Collectors and the Commissioners acting under this Act, as they do in the general and revenue administration. (2) The State Government may, suo motu or on an application made to it by the aggrieved person, at any time, call for the record of any inquiry or proceedings under sections 17 to 21 (both inclusive) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality o...
Pandurang Sambhaji Jondhale and anr. Vs. Suchita Deokaran Navandhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)MhLj405
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Both these writ petitions can be disposed of by common Judgment. The respondent in both the writ petitions is the landlady who had instituted two separate suits against the respective petitioners. Both the suits have been decreed in favour of the respondent; the petitioners in the respective petition preferred separate appeals before the District Court and the Appellate Court by common Judgment and Decree has dismissed the appeals. The present writ petitions have been, therefore, filed by the tenants. The Writ Petition No. 828 of 1990 arises out of R.C.S. No. 223 of 1983, whereas Writ Petition No. 829 of 1990 arises out of R.C.S. No 225 of 1983. Since the question of law argued in both the writ petitions is common and the relevant dates for deciding the controversy in both the writ petitions are also common, therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common Judgment.2. The main question that arises for consideration in both these writ petitions is wh...
Bhagwat Vithoba More Vs. Civil Judge, Jr. Division and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR13; 2003(1)BomCR21
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 18-12-1997, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Risod, in Election Petition No. 1/1997, by which the learned Judge has ordered for recounting of votes and upon recounting of the votes, set aside the election of the petitioner-Bhagwat Vithoba More, and further declared the respondent No. 2 Santosh as elected in the open category from Ward No. 1 of Gram Panchayat, Ghota, Taluqa Risod.2. The facts are as follows:Elections for filing the seats of ward members of Gram Panchayat, Ghota were held in the year 1997. In recounting of votes held on 25th October, 1997, respondent No. 2 Santosh More was apparently declared to have been elected on the basis he had secured 131 votes and the petitioner Bhagwat More had secured 130 votes. Apparently, recounting was ordered on an application made by the petitioner. As a result of recounting of votes, the Returning Officer found that Bhagwat More had secured 131 votes wherea...
Shri Luizinho Joaquim Faleiro Vs. the State of Goa, Through Its Chief ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MhLj334
V.C. Daga, J.1. These two Writ Petitions under Article 226 of theConstitution of India have been referred to me in view ofthe split judgment by the two learned Judges of the GoaBench of this Court. While Justice A.S. Aguiar was ofthe view that these petitions ought to be allowed and Rulegranted therein be made absolute, another learned Judge,Justice P.V. Hardas, took a view that these WritPetitions ought to be dismissed and Rule granted thereinbe discharged. The Division Bench did not formulatepoints of difference and ordered that these petitions beplaced before the Honble Chief Justice for being referredto a third Judge. The learned Chief Justice was pleasedto refer these petitions for my opinion as a third Judgeunder Clause 36 of the Letters Patent. That is how thesepetitions were placed before me for hearing and opinion.On maintainability of reference to a third Judge:2. At the first instance, when these petitionswere placed on board for directions Shri S.G. Dessai,learned Senior Co...
Saurabh Kalani Vs. Tata Finance Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR600; [2003]116CompCas316(Bom); [2003]42SCL702(Bom)
ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In these proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a challenge is sought to be preferred to the award of a sole arbitrator dated 25th August, 2001. Two significant issues arise in the present case. The first arises in the context of an allegation of bias against an Arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court has to consider as to when it can be said that there are justifiable doubts as regards the independence and impartiality of an Arbitrator within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act. The Court must determine as to what would be the appropriate test to be applied in law. A related issue is as to when the duty of disclosure is attracted so as to warrant a disclosure of a given set of circumstances. The second important issue which arises in this case is as to whether the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 are attracted to arbitral pr...
Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR62; 2003(2)MhLj92
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. This petition is directed against an order of the School Tribunal dated 28-11-2000. The 1st petitioner - Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha had started a school, which was granted a provisional recognition by the order dated 14-6-1985 for a period of one year vide order of the same date of the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. The school was again granted a recognition for a period of one more year, i.e. from 1986 to 1987 vide order dated 23-6-1986. This recognition was further extended by one year from 1-4-1987 to 31-3-1988 vide order dated 8-7-1987 of the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.3. It is true that during this period the petitioner appointed respondent No. 3 as a teacher. The order of appointment dated 1-7-1985 appoints the 3rd respondent as a teacher for a period of one year from 1-7-1985 to 30-4-1986. As a matter of fact, the 3rd respondent appears to have continued for another period of two years b...
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and ors. Vs. A.R. Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR670; 2002(5)BomCR425
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this bunch of petitions the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as BSNL for short) has challenged the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the Original Applications filed by about 21 employees of the company quashing the orders of their transfer basically on the ground of total lack of jurisdiction in the Tribunal in view of the provisions of section 14 of the Act.2. Facts giving rise to these petitions briefly stated are that :The Government of India took a policy decision of converting its department of Telecommunications into a limited Company and therefore established BSNL and transferred its employees hitherto before working in the department of Telecommunications to said BSNL with effect from 1-10-2000. From that day onwards the employees of the department of Telecommunications became employees of BSNL.3. On 26-11-2001 an order was passed by the Chief General Manager, Telecom, Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai transferri...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›