Court : Supreme Court of India
G. S. Singhvi, J.1. Leave granted.2. The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether reservation of the parcels of land owned by the respondents in the Regional plans/Development plans prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, 'the 1966 Act') will be deemed to have lapsed because the same were not acquired or no steps were commenced in that respect within six months of the service of notice under Section127 of that Act.3. For the sake of convenience, we shall first notice the facts from the record of the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 9934/2009.3.1 Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the owners in possession of the land comprised in Gat Nos. 44/1/2 and 44/1/4, CTS No. 2141 measuring about 2hectares and 40 ares situated at Shrirampur Taluka, Shrirampur (Maharashtra).3.2 In the Development plan prepared for Shrirampur under the 1966 Act, which was sanctioned by Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra vide order dated 9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(3)ALLMR147; 1999(1)BomCR722
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel; Shri Rele for the petitioner and Shri Singhvi for the first respondent.2. This is a petition by the employer M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. challenging the order dated 5th January 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai allowing Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 855 of 1989. The complaint alleged unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short '1971 Act'). Item 9 reads as under :'Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement.'The Industrial Court has recorded a finding that the employer had effected a change in the conditions of service applicable to the workmen and though the conditions of service related to Items 1, 10 and 11 of the Fourth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, no notice of change as retired by section 9-A of the I.D. Act was given. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that after the lock-out ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(3)BomCR225; [1994]81CompCas754(Bom)
N.D. Vyas, J. 1. Company Petition No. 332 of 1993 is filed by Tata Oil Mills Company Limited and Company Petition No. 333 of 1993 is filed by Hindustan Lever Limited. The said companies are hereinafter referred to as 'TOMCO' and 'HLL', respectively. The petitions are under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanctioning a scheme of amalgamation of TOMCO with HLL. The first petition is by the TOMCO, being the transferor-company, and the second petition is by HLL, being the transferee-company. It would be convenient to dispose of both the petitions by a common judgment. 2. TOMCO, the transferor-company, was incorporated on December 12, 1917, for the purpose of, inter alia, manufacturing, marketing, selling and/or distributing oils, soaps, detergents, toiletries and animal feeds. HLL, the transferee-company, was incorporated on October 17, 1933, as a private company and converted into a public limited company on November 1, 1956. During 1991-92, according to TOMCO, it incu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(2)ALLMR504; 1998(2)BomCR60; 1998(1)MhLj523
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J. 1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been fifed with a prayer for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgement and order dated 29th July, 1986 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay. 2. The petitioner states that initially he was employed with the respondent No. 2, the Jam ., Bombay. The management of the respondent No. 2 has been taken over by the National Textile Corporation Ltd. (South Maharashtra), the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 1 Jam Manufacturing Mills (UC) Bombay is said to have been under the control and management of the respondent No. 3 with effect from 18th October, 1983. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court is impleaded as a respondent No. 4, whereas the member of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, at Bombay, constituted under the B.I.R. Act, 1946, is impleaded as a respondent No. 5. 3. It is stated that the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1990]184ITR7(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in West Germany. The assessee-company, Shah Construction agreement on and Jolly Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd., entered into a collaboration agreement on April 12, 1956, and formed a company by the name Shah Salzgitter and Jolly (P.) Ltd., in India in the year 1956, with the object of executing a contract work for Koyna Dam in Maharashtra. The assessee held 49% of the equity shares, while the two Indian companies held 51% between themselves. The assessee was to render technical assistance including supply of know-how to the newly formed Indian company (for short, the 'Indian company'). The terms as regards the ownership of plant, machinery and other equipment, inter alia, were that the three companies would continue as the owners thereof in their shareholding ratio. For the purpose of enabling the contract work to be carried on smoothly and efficiently, the assesses opened a branch and a bank account in India in or about Decemb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(4)BomCR187
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Validity of show cause notice dated 4th September, 1986 (Ex. L) issued under proviso to section 7(1) of the Requisitioning & Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (the Act of 1952) is questioned in this petition.2. The point arises against the following undisputed legal and factual backdrop. Multistoried building known as Sudama House situated in Ballard Estate, Bombay, was requisitioned by the Government of India under Rule 76 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939 vide order dated 26th June, 1942 during Second World War on the stated ground of the requirement by the Department of supply for use in connection with the prosecution of the war.3. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution being Misc. Petition No. 289 of 1962, challenging the requisition as well as its continuation on several grounds was filed in the Court. Government of India, Ministry of Law, vide communication dated 18th March, 1963 informed that due to shortage of accommodation it was not pos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)ALLMR425; (2003)2BOMLR253; 2003(2)MhLj58
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioners are taking exception to the judgments and orders passed by Small Causes Court in Ejectment Application No. 715 of 1972 and consequential appeal decided by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court bearing Appeal No. 18 of 1988 in Obstructionist Notice No. 67 of 1983.2. The facts of the matter heed to be stated for understanding the controversy in better way. The Ejectment Application No. 715 of 1972 was filed under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act (for convenience referred to as the Act). It was treated to be a summary proceeding. When the decree was put to execution by decree holder, Kondiram Dhanawade, father of original defendant Ramakant Kondiram Dhanawade obstructed the execution proceedings by contending that he was residing in the said tenement as licenseesince 1972 though the suit was filed in the year 1972 and he was not participating in it as co-defendant. It is necessary to mention here that the said tenement was decla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR309; 2009(1)BomCR150
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Defendant No. 1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1634 of 2000 has filed this Revision challenging rejection of his application below Exh. 15 vide order dated 20.02.2001 by Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur. The objections raised to the maintainability of Regular Civil Suit No. 1634 of 2000 were in the light of earlier litigation vide Regular Civil Suit No. 1214 of 1998 and pointing out provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, Section 11 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. That application has been rejected.2. The revision applicant claims to be a Builder and Developer and he has constructed a complex on Plot No. 21 and it is not in dispute that on front side as also on rear side of this plot, there are public roads. The grievance of the present non-applicants No. 1 to 5, who filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1634 of 2000, is in relation to public road of 40 feet width on rear side of said plot No. 21. It appears that all plots located between these two public ro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1964All27
Mithan Lal, J.1. This suit was originally filed in the Court of the District Judge Sultanpur under Section 29(1) of the Indian Patents and Designs Act (hereinafter called the Act). Since the defendants raised a counter claim for revocation of the patent, the suit along with the counter claim was transferred to this Court for decision.2. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm dealing in utensils having its office at Durga Devi in Mirzapur City. Luxmi Dutt and Roop Chand are the two partners of the firm at present. One Mahabir Prasad Vishwakarma of Mirzapur obtained a patent No. 42514 of 1950 under the Act in respect of the process of manufacture of hollow wares, such as 'lotas', 'batwas', 'degchis', 'batlois' etc., under a registration certificate dated the 7th August 1958 issued by the Patent Office, Calcutta. Mahabir Prasad Vishwakarma was thus said to have an exclusive right to manufacture hollow wares of the former description by the patented process and he was said to have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC459; [1961]2SCR537
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is a petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution in which the validity of the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 (XXVII of 1952), is challenged. The first petitioner is a public limited company which has its registered office at Bombay. A large majority of its shareholders are citizens of India; some of them are themselves companies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 are the Directors of Petitioner No. 1, the second petitioner being the Chairman of its Board of Directors. These petitioners are all citizens of India. At all material times the first petitioner carried on and still carries on the business of producing and selling coal excavated from its collieries at Rampur in the State of Orissa. Two leases have been executed in its favour; the first was executed on October 17, 1941, by the Governor of Orissa whereby all that piece or parcel of land in the registration district of Sambalpur admeasuring about 334...
Tag this Judgment!