Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1563; (1990)92BOMLR304; JT1990(2)SC200; 1990(1)SCALE398; (1990)2SCC288; [1990]1SCR862
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Can a licensee occupying a flat in a tenant-co-partnership society be evicted therefrom under Sub-section (1) of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Act No. XXIV of 1961), hereinafter called 'the Societies Act', notwithstanding the protection extended by Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotels & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act No. LVII of 1947), hereinafter called 'the Rent Act', as amended by Act XVII of 1973 or whether such proceedings would be governed by Section 28 of the Rent Act? That is the question which arises for our determination in the context of the fact that the appellant licensee claimed to be in actual possession of the flat on 1st February, 1973, under a subsisting licence, albeit without the express permission of the society. The factual matrix in which this question needs to be answered may be briefly stated as under:3. The Vishwa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., respondent No. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(3)ALLMR338; 2006(3)BomCR557
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and its functionaries have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and order dated October 14, 2004, passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 and quashed and set aside the orders dated 24th March, 2004 (Exhibits `O1', `O2' and `P') and the demands of payment pursuant to the bills (Exhibits `R', `S1' to `S8') so far as the present appellants sought to reassess the rateable value with effect from 1st April, 2000. 2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the first appellant- the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 'the Corporation' and the present respondent No.1- Dalamal Tower Premises Co-operative Society Limited 'the petitioner'. 3. The petitioner claims to hold the property being plot of land with building `Dalamal Tower', situate at Plot No. 211, Backbay Reclamation, Municipal A Ward No. 1315 (127), Nariman Point, Mum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(5)BomCR355
Vazifdar S.J., J. 1. The learned Commissioner Mr. A.R. Bapat has made an application for fixing his remuneration and for the payment thereof by the parties to the above proceedings viz. the plaintiff, the defendant and the Obstructionist.2. As the defendant and the Obstructionist, husband and wife, have appeared in person and as the matter requires the determination of questions of law, I considered it appropriate to appoint amicus curiae. Mr. Colabawala and Mr. Saraf appeared amicus curiae. I must at the outset express my appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by them so willingly.3. The above Summary Suit was filed on 22.12.1998 and decreed on 10.12.2002. The plaintiff filed an execution application on 19.4.2003. The defendant's wife, the Obstructionist, obstructed the execution of the decree. The flat which is the subject matter of the execution proceedings was attached on 29.7.2004. The plaintiff therefore filed Chamber Summons No. 395 of 2004 on 15.4.2004 for removing t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR338; 2009(2)MhLj446
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The petitioner-original defendant has challenged the impugned order dated 7th July, 2008 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Bombay, whereby, against an order in interim notice 2014/2007 dated 8/2/2008, passed by the learned Trial Judge, has allowed an amendment application to the plaint by holding that the revision is tenable.2. The application for amendment to give better particulars of subsequent developments in consonance with the pleadings already made in the plaint was moved by the respondent-plaintiff. The same was rejected by holding that it is inconsistent and contrary to the averments already made in the plaint and it would cause prejudice and injustice to the other side. The pleadings are completed and the issues are framed. But, no affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief filed, when the present application for amendment was moved. The respondent's-plaintiff s revision application against the said order was opposed by contending that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1993Bom346; 1993(2)BomCR627; (1993)95BOMLR797; 1994(1)MhLj124
ORDER1. This petition involves consideration of interesting and important questions concerning interpretation and application of S. 31A(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and Ss. 2(4), 3, 9 and 10 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passenger) Act, 1958. The relevant questions are formulated as under:-- (a) Whether the concerned authority was entitled to refuse application of the petitioners-Owners for cancellation of the then existing registration certificate in respect of vehicles in question in favour of respondent No. 4 and for issue of fresh registration certificate as contemplated under S. 31A(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 merely on . ground of arrears of passenger tax and penalty due and payable by the operator in respect of said vehicles at the material time? (b) Whether the petitioners are liable to be considered as 'Operator' of the said vehicles within meaning of the expression 'Operator' as defined under S. 2(4) of Bombay Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passenger) A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(2)ALLMR596; 1998(3)BomCR458; 1998(3)MhLj438
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel; Dr. Chandrachud for petitioners; Mr. C.J. Sawant, Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 and 5; Mr. B.R Apte, Advocate General for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. R.M. Sawant for respondent No. 4. 2. The first three petitioners are Trade Unions duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 representing a large number of hawkers in Navi Mumbai, (New Bombay), the twin city. Petitioner Nos. 4 to 17 are hawkers, who claim to have been carrying their hawking activities in Navi Mumbai and had submitted their applications to the second respondent Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation for grant of licence to hawk in the hawking zones. The fourth respondent City and Industrial Development Corporation (for short 'CIDCO') is the New Town Development Authority (N.T.D.A.) constituted under section 113 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The third respondent Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation is a Corporation duly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(4)BomCR536; 2007(4)MhLj82
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner. Association is challenging the increase in transit fee from Rs. 20/-to Rs.50/-by Respondent No. 1. Municipal Corporation, on the ground that it is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. During arguments, Shri Lohiya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also contended that in fact there could not be levy of any transit fee on goods/ transport vehicles which used National Highway only for passing from one point to another point and therefore today he has moved an application seeking permission to amend prayer clause by which he is seeking quashing and setting aside of relevant provisions of Standing Orders framed by Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Section 466(1)(A)(f) of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). As the necessary facts are already on record in writ petition with necessary assertions, we have al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(6)BomCR272; [2005]142STC199(Bom)
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. On request of the applicant, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has made this reference to this Court for adjudication on the following questions of law.'(a) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the definition of the 'dealer' under Section 2(11) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was dealer under the Act ?(b) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the definition of the term 'business' as given in Section 2(5A) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 during the material period, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was carrying on the business ?(c) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that it was for the applicant to prove that there was no profit-motive in the activity conducted by it qua its rendering ser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR507; 2008(6)BomCR124; 2008(5)MhLj27
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Simple but a pertinent question of law challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') insofar as it relates to the prerequisite period of separation for one year for institution of petition under Section 13B of the Act, as mandatory and also on the ground that it is arbitrary and has no nexus to the object of the said provision, arises in this petition.2. The petitioner No. 1 was married to the petitioner No. 2 on 29th April, 2007, according to Hindu rites and customs. The marriage between the parties was registered in accordance with law. After marriage, the parties cohabited at Bombay till 2nd August, 2007 when matrimonial differences arose between the parties. According to them, the parties realized that they were not suitable to each other, their marriage had irretrievably broken down and there was no possibility of saving the marriage. There are no issues from the wedlo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2010]153CompCas497(SC); JT2009(3)SC216; 2009(3)SCALE451; (2009)4SCC94; (2009)12VatReporter137; (2009)21VST505(SC); JT2009(1)SC216
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 24767 of 2005.2. Whether Section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 [for short 'the Bombay Act'] and Section 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [for short 'the Kerala Act'] and similar provision contained in other State legislations by which first charge has been created on the property of the dealer or such other person, who is liable to pay sales tax etc., are inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short `the DRT Act') for recovery of `debt' and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the Securitisation Act') for enforcement of `security interest' and whether by virtue of non obstante clauses contained in Section 34(1) of the DRT Act and Section 35 of the Securitisation Act, two Central legislations will have primacy over State legislations are the questions whi...
Tag this Judgment!