Mumbai Court April 2010 Judgments

S. Motilal Plywood House Through Its Manager, Shri Rakesh Rameshchandr ...

Court: Mumbai

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Common order will dispose of both the Writ Petitions as overlapping questions have been raised in relation to the decision of the General Body of the Corporation and more particularly in respect of the tender notice inviting offers for appointment of Agent for collection of Octroi and escort fees of the Corporation for the year 2010-20 11.2. Heard. Rule. Counsel for the Respondents in the respective Petitions waive notice. By consent, both Petitions are proceeded for final disposal at admission stage itself, considering the urgency.3. In so far as the first Writ Petition (WP No. 2415/20 10) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the terms and conditions of eligibility in Para No. 5 of tender notice-2nd call dated 24-3-2010 issued by the Respondent No. 2 on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary and capricious and intended to favour the predetermined bidders.4. The tender notice was in ...

Mansoor S/O Kasim Mulla Vs. Guddu Saheb Ibrahim Mugale and Maharashtra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR2207

A.V. Potdar, J.1. By this Civil Revision Application, the applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 11.06.2008 passed in Application No. 27/2007 by the learned Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad. By the said order, the Wakf Tribunal has confirmed the order dated 01.12.2007 passed by respondent No. 2, in case No. 42/54/2007.2. It appears that Rule was issued in the Civil Revision Application on 8th September 2008.3. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties.4. Such of the facts, as are necessary for the just decision of the present Civil Revision Application, can be summarized as follows:i) The applicant claims to be the founder member and trustee of the Trust namely 'Jumma Masjid Trust' situated at Gadhinglaj, Dist-Kolhapur. The applicant contends that since the inception of the said Trust, the applicant is working as a President of the same. The said Trust was earlier registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, in the year 1989....

Ganpat Rambhau Survase-walke (Pujari) and Shrihari Baburao Survase-wal ...

Court: Mumbai

A.V. Potdar, J.1. By the present First Appeal, filed Under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code the appellants, original plaintiffs, have challenged the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1999 passed in Trust Suit No. 1/1991.2. It appears that the First Appeal was admitted on 8th March 2000.3. Before I embark upon the merits of the matter, it is necessary to consider few facts of the case, which can be enumerated thus -(A) (i) The appellants have filed Trust Suit No. 1/1991 before the District Court, Osmanabad for declaration that they have absolute right over the offerings and income of Tuljabhavani Mandir, Tujlapuar; for perpetual injunction against the respondents / defendants restraining them from appellants' enjoyment over this right and for declaration that the compromise arrived in Suit No. 59/1/1357 Fasli (1947 A.D.) in the matter of 'Daulatrao v. Gangaram' is not binding on them and not affected their rights.(ii) According to the appellants / plaintiffs, on or about 910 Hijari,...

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., A Govt. of India Enterprises and ...

Court: Mumbai

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. With consent of the learned Counsel, matter is taken up immediately for final hearing and disposal.2. Respondent No. 1 is admittedly the landlord in respect of the premises admesuring about 10,000 sq.ft. in Madhav Mills Estate, Lamington Road, Bombay. The said premises were let out under a registered indenture of lease in favour of Caltex India Ltd. for running petrol pump. As per the terms of the contract, period of the lease was 20 years and the agreed annual rent was Rs. 33,000/-. It was further covenanted that on expiry of 20 years, the tenant would have an option to get the lease renewed for a further period of 10 years for which rent would be Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Before expiry of the said period of ten years, the tenant would also be entitled to exercise option for further renewal for a period of 10 years at the rent of Rs. 39,660/- per annum. For both the renewals, option was to be exercised before the expiry of the term. It also specifically provided that o...

Smt. Isarat Masood Vs. Jhaverilal Umershi

Court: Mumbai

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Rule. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties forthwith.2. The revision-applicant is a tenant in Room No. 13, Jhaveri Villa, at 53/59, Lamington Road, Mumbai. The respondent is the original plaintiff landlord. The plaintiff had filed RAE & R Suit No. 9/21 of 1991 for eviction on the ground that the tenant had failed to make payment of rent and was in arrears for more than six months and inspite of notice, he had failed. Several other grounds are also taken. Pending the suit, amendment was made in the plaint alleging that during the pendency of the suit, she had also made construction of permanent nature by constructing attic floor and a loft in the suit room, causing danger to the structure of the building. All these contentions were denied. The trial Court passed the decree for eviction on both the grounds. The defendant preferred Appeal No. 169/2004. That appeal was also dismissed upholding the decree on both the grounds. Hence, this Revision Application by the or...

Damaji Sakharam Chivande (Since Deceased by L.Rs.) (Jayawantabi Wd/O D ...

Court: Mumbai

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff who was unsuccessful in both the Courts below.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:The subject matter of the suit is house property. The plaintiffs claim to have purchased the said suit house from one Rukhamabai by registered sale deed dated 28.12.1955. Plaintiffs contend that the said house was in their possession until 1974. In the year 1974 the defendant who is real sister of the plaintiffs came to reside at village Tadali. She had no place to reside. She made a request to allow her family to reside therein. Plaintiffs acceded to the request and permitted the defendants to reside therein for a period of 5 to 6 years. After the period of 5 to 6 years defendants failed to vacate, hence the plaintiffs issued notice but the defendants refused to accept the notice. Plaintiffs therefore instituted a suit for possession.3. Defendants resisted the suit. The defendants do not dispute that house property wa...

Narishala Society Vs. Parmanand Bhimandas Talreja and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 833 of 2007.2. Respondent No. 1 filed R.C. Suit No. 50 of 2001 against respondent No. 2 before the Small Causes Court which was decreed. The appeal preferred by respondent No. 2 was dismissed. A writ petition preferred against that order being Writ Petition No. 6330 of 2006 was also dismissed. Therefore, execution proceedings were in motion by the decree holder i.e. respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2. In these execution proceedings the appellant filed an obstructionist notice under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil procedure. That application was heard and decided by the Trial Court against the present appellant. Being aggrieved by that order, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No. 833 of 2007 which has been dismissed. Hence, the present second appeal.3. Mr. Kanetkar appearing for the respondents submits that the present second appeal...

Harihar Diwakar Choube, Vs. Govind Diwakar Choube and ors.

Court: Mumbai

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This Second Appeal is filed by the original defendants No. 2 and 3. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.2. Facts giving rise to the appeal are as under:Respondents 1 and 2 the original plaintiffs instituted a suit for partition and separate possession. Plaintiffs contended that the property as described in Schedule A, B and C was ancestral joint family property and the plaintiffs had 1/5th share in the same property. It is their contention that the suit property is in possession of the defendants 2 and 3. Until their mother was alive she was looking after the suit property which is an agricultural land and a house. Plaintiffs contend that defendant No. 1 is claiming exclusive title over the field survey No. 252/1 on account of a Will said to have been executed in favour of defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs claim partition and separate possession of the suit property.3. Defendants 1 and 4 filed their separate Written Statement and adm...

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Inco ...

Court: Mumbai

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule; by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The Petitioner is a consortium consisting of Larsen and Toubro Ltd., a company incorporated in India and Scomi Engineering Berhad, a company incorporated in Malaysia. The Petitioner has been awarded a contract for the design, development, construction, commissioning, operation and maintenance of the Mumbai Monorail Project by MMRDA. The consideration to be received for executing the Project is Rs. 2,460 crores. The Petitioner is an Indian resident and is assessable as an Association of Persons (AOP).3. On 29 October 2009, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requesting the First Respondent to issue a certificate authorising MMRDA to deduct tax at the rate of 0.11% from the payments made by it to the Petitioner under the contract. The case of the Petitioner is that the share...

Ms. Shubhangi Narayanrao Yadav and ors. Vs. Shivaji University and anr ...

Court: Mumbai

1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr. Khadapkar, A.G.P. waives notice for Respondent No. 1.3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.4. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, direction is sought against the University to declare the Petitioners as having passed examination for Bachelor in Dress Making and Fashion Co-ordination (BDFC) with First Class or Distinction, as the case may be. It is further prayed that the Respondent No. 2 may be directed to consider the Petitioners for the post of Lecturers for Dress Designing and Garment Manufacturing (DDGM) by treating them as having passed in First Class in final examination of the degree in BDFC. By amending this Petition, further relief is claimed that the decision of the Adhoc Board of Studies of the University at Exhibit 'L' dated 3rd April 2010 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitu...