Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR585; 2003(1)BomCR3
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal upholding the concurrent findings of both the courts below viz. the finding of the Additional Tahsildar as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer. The authorities below have found that the alleged surrender of the lands by the respondent in favour of the landlord i.e. petitioners' predecessor-in-interest is not in accordance with law.2. The present proceedings were commenced by the respondent i.e. by the original respondent Gopinath Krishna Salunke now represented by his legal heirs under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act') sometime in the year 1982. The said respondent claimed that he was entitled for determination of purchase price, having become a deemed purchaser on 1-4-1957. He claimed that he was tenant and in possession of the land on that day and was, therefore, entitled under section 32 to purchase the said land.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(4)MhLj1086
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is challenging the order which has been passed by the J.M.F.C. dated 7.10.1997 whereby the learned Magistrate has issued the process taking the cognizance of the complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 in context with the offences punishable under provisions of Section 420, 406, 417, 418 of IPC. The contention of the petitioner is that when a civil suit is pending in respect of the same property, in context with the same transaction, there cannot be a criminal prosecution in respect of the same. Shri Gupte has submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner in the petition challenging the said order are not correct and do not deserve to be entertained. He submitted that when this Court is requested to exercise the powers in view of provisions of Section 482 of Criminal Procedure code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code' for convenience), this Court has to be very cautious in exercising such power. He submitted th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR301; 2003(4)BomCR274
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the Advocates for the parties. Perused the record.2. The petitioner herein had filed regular Civil Suit No. 34 of 1991 against the respondent No. 1 and some others for partition and separate possession of 1/4 share contending that the agricultural property held by the brothers was a joint family property. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court while rejecting the monetary claim made by the petitioner against the defendants in the suit. The preliminary decree was passed on 17-1-1995. The Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1995 came to be filed by the respondent No. 1 herein against the said decree which was allowed by the lower Appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 12-2-1998 and thereby the suit filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed.3. The petitioner thereupon filed the Second Appeal No. 169 of 1998 and pending the hearing and final disposal of the said second appeal preferred Civil Application No. 3202 of 1998 for direction to the parties not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(4)ALLMR741; 2003(2)BomCR821
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by a woman Sarpanch (who is the 1st petitioner herein) and two members of Village Panchayat (i.e. petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in this petition). This petition raises two questions concerning the interpretation of section 145(1-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, 'the said Act') and they are as follows :-(i) Whether it is mandatory to dissolve a Village Panchayat under the provision of section 145(1-A) of the said Act, if more than half the total number of seats in a Panchayat become vacant?(ii) Is it not necessary to provide a hearing to the members of the Village Panchayat before a decision to dissolve the Panchayat is arrived at?2. Before we deal with these two questions, it is necessary to look into the background to this controversy. Part IX was introduced in the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Seventy-third) Amendment Act, 1992 with effect from 24th April, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)BomCR652
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Principal Secretary (Revenue), which decides the question regarding the liability of the petitioner company to pay the non-agricultural tax in respect of the subject land in its possession at Ojhar, Taluka Niphad, District Nasik. It is not necessary to burden this judgment with all the dates and events that precede, the decision under challenge. Suffice it to mention that the revenue authorities issued demand notice to the petitioner company demanding amount towards non-agricultural assessment in respect of the subject land, being sum of Rs. 10,98,11,575/-. That demand was disputed by the petitioner on the premise that the title of the land vested with the Union of India and that the petitioner company was Government controlled company. In the circumstances, it was contended that the subject land could not be subjected to non-agricultural assessment, in view of the mandate of Article 285(1) of Constitut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)BomCR81
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The question which this Court is called upon to decide in these proceedings is whether an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is empowered by the provisions of the Act to suspend the hearing of the arbitral proceedings and, in the alternate, whether the Court exercising jurisdiction under section 9 can issue a direction to that effect. Shorn at this stage of all the details to which it would nevertheless become necessary to advert during the course of the judgment, the Arbitral Tribunal by an interim direction, directed the petitioner ('MSEB') to deposit certain amounts which were permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent ('DSL') against Bank Guarantees. The Bank which had issued the Bank Guarantees extended the guarantees from time to time but then declined to renew them any further. The Guarantees were not invoked by the MSEB befo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)ALLMR978; 2003(2)BomCR640; (2003)1CompLJ72(Bom); [2003]44SCL74(Bom)
ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit. Counsel for the respondent waives services. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. On 20 May, 1995, an agreement was entered into between the parties by which' the petitioner appointed the respondent as a sole selling agent for the sale of span parts of textile machinery. Disputes arose between the parties and, on 3 April, 1998, the petitioner terminated the agreement. The agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause in the following terms: '10. Arbitration.--In the event of any doubt, dispute, difference or question arising howsoever between the parties from or under this agreement or any operation activity or accounting thereunder (including any question of interpretations enforceability of this agreement), the same shall, if not amicably resolved, be referred to the arbitration of a mutually agreed arbitrator and in the event of any disagreement as to the appointment of such sole arbitrator, the sole arbitrator sha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR519; 2003(2)BomCR790
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Mr. Gawde waives notice for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 has been served with notice indicating that the matter will be finally disposed of at notice stage but none appears. Heard forthwith for final disposal.2. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the common order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai dated March 30, 2001 in Appeal No. 80 of 2000 and Appeal No. 27 of 2001. Briefly stated, the petitioner had filed a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 against the respondents. In the said dispute, as it stood amended, following reliefs were claimed:---'a) The respondent No. 2 has no right to represent the society i.e. Vishakha Sadan Co-operative Housing Society,b) For permanent injunction from this Hon'ble Court restraining the respondents from entering into the contract with the builder or developer for the purpose of developing the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(3)BomCR334; [2004]121CompCas335(Bom); (2003)4CompLJ131(Bom); [2003]47SCL426(Bom)
1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal forthwith.2. In these proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the following reliefs have been prayed for and urged before this Court in the submissions :(i) An injunction restraining the first respondent, from giving effect to or acting upon the resignation tendered by the second, third and fourth respondents from the board of directors of the first respondent;(ii) An injunction restraining the first respondent, from giving effect to the resolution of the board of directors dated 20th August 2002 purporting to appoint the fifth and sixth respondents as directors of the first respondent; and(iii) An injunction restraining the first respondent, from acting upon the resolution dated 6th September 2002 of the board of directors purporting to pass the annual accounts of the first respondent.3. A subscription-cum-shareholders' agreement was entered into on 25th March 200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)BomCR795
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for winding up of the respondent company under section 439 read with sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 and for appointment of Official Liquidator as provided thereunder. The petitioner company has sought for the aforesaid directions alleging failure on the part of the company to pay its alleged debt to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 52,22,114/-. 2. From the averments in the petition, it appears that the petitioner company had deposited a sum of Rs. 5 crores with the respondent company in the portfolio management scheme. The petitioner company had also paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs towards service charges. It is an admitted position that the respondent company refunded a sum of Rs. 2 crores and requested the petitioners to continue the said portfolio deposit in respect of the balance amount of Rs. 3 crores for a further period of one year. The said relationship between the two began in February 1993 and the refund of Rs. 2 crores ...
Tag this Judgment!