Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... directions to the respondents / state authorities to restrain respondents 6 to 15 from completing recruitment process in pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.9.2616 has no force and said prayer stands rejected.it will be open for the respondent no.5 to continue with the recruitment process and take further steps. the respondent no.5 ..... for appointment.in case of dattaraj nathuji thaware vs. state of maharashtra and others, (2005) 1 scc 590, the apex court held that a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation ..... petitioners, stating therein the factual matrix of the case, legal submissions etc. he submitted that as per the provisions of section 41a of the bombay public trust act, the charity commissioner can issue directions to ensure that the trust is properly administered. the directions can also be given for protection of the property of trust. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
..... vs. union of india, reported at (1986) 1 scc 32, to explain the definition as contained in section 2(1)(h) of the mines act. the judgment in air india vs. nergesh meerza, reported at air 1981 sc 1829, has been pressed into service to show that there cannot be any estoppel against statute again for the reasons already recorded above. i ..... . similar obligation cast upon the employer by ncwa - iii which prevailed till signing of ncwa-iv is ignored. it needs to be noted that admittedly ncwa-iii remained in force till 31.12.1986 and has been replaced by ncwa-iv thereafter. cgit does not even consider this position & its impact.26. the provisions of rule 68 undoubtedly require ..... .23. the documents on which the petitioner placed reliance before cgit show that as per clause 8.9.0 of ncwa - iii, signed on 11.11.1983 and in force up to 31.12.1986, the agreement provided & required that such canteen would not be run by contractor. utensils and fuel was to be supplied by colliery management and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... tahsildar, sailu is directed to give full opportunity of hearing to the parties and then decide the application in the light of provision of hyderabad tenancy and agricultural lands act 1950 and the judgment on the subject cited by the parties before him and give clear cut findings on the issues raised. 32 till application is decided by the additional ..... proceedings. such exercise to be carried within two weeks.5) s.o. to 22nd november, 2010.6) interim relief of status quo concerning the possession to remain in force till 22nd november, 2010."thereafter, the matter was listed from time to time and was heard finally on 7.12.2010 and on 8.12.2010 hearing was completed and ..... unless the matter is heard and finally decided. the counsel further placed reliance in the case of bondar singh and others v. nihal singh and others, reported in air 2003 sc 1905 and submitted that if there are no pleadings, no evidence can be considered in that regard. counsel further placed reliance in case of bhaurao s/o .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... scc (cri.) 1341, in particular, paragraph 9 thereof which observes that contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice or which tends to impede its course or tends to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions. it is further observed that the ..... submission is completely ill-advised. as already mentioned hitherto, the show-cause notice issued to the respondent/contemner, vide order dated 10th october 2008, is for his acts of commission and omission while presenting the praecipe before the learned single judge. in other words, the basis on which suo motu action for having committed contempt on ..... case of s.v.r. mudaliar (dead) by lrs. & ors. vs. mrs.rajabu f.buhari (dead) by lrs. reported in air 1995 sc 1607. the exposition in this decision is that an act of the court shall prejudice no man. the fact that there was delay in disposal of the writ petition filed by the relative of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... scc 634, it cannot be held that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant petition. equally reliance on the single judge's judgement reported in air 1999 delhi 11 (dlf industries v. standard chartered bank) is misplaced because the factual background and the finding recorded in paras 6 and 7 by the learned single judge ..... since there is no resistance to the enforcement and execution of the subject award the petition be made absolute as well.26] mr.sen relied upon the following decisions: (1) air 1994 sc 1715 (brace transport corporation of monrovia, bermuda v. orient middle east lines ltd, saudia arabia & ors);(2) (2008) 4 supreme court cases 190 (venture global ..... of part i of the arbitration to an award under new york convention. he submits that section 44 of the act speaks of foreign award and by virtue of the fact that there is an agreement in force and india is one of the countries which are parties to the convention set forth in the first schedule to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... the learned single judge has not considered the law laid down by the hon'ble apex court in the case of mardia chemical vs. union of india and others, air 2004 sc 2371.10. to substantiate his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon following cases;(a) khamgaon urban coop. bank ltd. vs. karunashankar ..... shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.19. applying the parameters of sections 34 and 35 of the securitization act in the instant case, it is amply clear that since notice under section 13(4) of ..... is unwarranted and barred by section 34 of the securitization act, since notice under section 13(4) of the said act was issued by respondent no. 1 to the appellant. in the said context, learned counsel for respondent no.1 placed reliance on national insurance company ltd. vs. mastan, 2005 air (scw) 6305.14. moreover, the learned counsel .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... any will made before the first day of january, 1866. (2) save as provided in subsection (1) or by any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of this part shall constitute the law of india applicable to all cases of testamentary succession."17. under sections 57 and 58 there are no restrictions upon ..... matters not how and under which legislation she has married. as she claims properties by testamentary succession, that succession is governed under section 21 of the special marriage act.23. hence, paragraph 13 of the the judgment in the case of sayeeda shakur khan (supra) cannot be relied upon to conclude the requirement of allowing probate. ..... of an authenticated copy of the will annexed.(2) this section shall not apply in case of wills made by mohammedans......."hence section 213 of the indian succession act also puts restrictions upon executors and legatees of certain communities. there are no such restrictions upon mohammedans. hence, if an executor or a legatee of a hindu .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... the words 'take cognizance' has been judicially interpreted in a number of cases. for example, in the case of superintendent and legal remembrancer v/s. abani kumar (air 1950 cal 437), the calcutta high court has held (see para 7) thus :- "before it can be said that any magistrate has taken cognizance of any offence under ..... under section 51 of the repealed act after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of the ..... - section (1) of section 52 of the said act (hereinafter referred to as the repealed act) shall stand dissolved. (2) ----------- (3) notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the repealed act and no adjudicating officer shall take notice of any contravention .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... . a mere direction to continue the grant in india cannot be challenged when the initial grant in the u.s as well as the limited grant in india is in force. in the case of ramesh nivrutti bhagwat v. dr. surendra mandar parkhe a 2001 bom 461 it was held that when the grant of the superior court in california, ..... which was a judgment in rem was in force, the ancillary grant also could not be revoked.125. dr.singhvi argued that the grounds showing just cause for revocation of the grant under section 263 of the is ..... v. kalikrishna chatterjee (1896) xxiv ilr calcutta. 95 (relating to the analogous provision in s.50 of the probate and administration act, 1881; pramode kumar roy v. sephalika dutta air 1957 calcutta. 631, anil behari ghosh v. latika bala dassi, air 1955 supreme court 566; bal gangadhar tilak v. sakwarbai maharaj, (1902) iv bombay law rreporter 637) the facts in all these .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... case before the apex court, the magistrate took cognizance on 4th february 2002 without examining the complainant and its witnesses under section 200 of crpc. the amending act 55 of 2002, however, came into force from 6th february 2003 and, therefore, in national small industries corporation ltd. (supra), the apex court was not required to apply the provisions of section 145 ..... the case of the accused that, as held by the apex court in nirmaljeet singh hoon vs the state of west bengal and another, (1973) (3) scc 753): (air 1972 sc 639) :-" . the object of such examination is to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case against the person accused of the offence in the complaint and to ..... . similarly, reliance placed by learned counsel for the accused on decision of the apex court in pankajbhai nagjibhai patel vs state of gujarat and another, air 2001 sc 567=(2001) 2 scc 595, would not carry the petitioner's case any further, because in the said decision also the apex court had no occasion .....
Tag this Judgment!