Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-13-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Bom99
Masodkar, J. 1. These 2661 cases have clogged the Court's corridors for considerable time, challenging the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No. 27 of 1961) as amended by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) and (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act No. 21 of 1975) Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Amendment Act, 1975 (Act No. 47 of 1975) and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Act No. 2 of 1976).2. The petitioners raised almost Common questions and the petitions can be decided by an order indicating separate points urged in support of different petitioners' claims. It is assumed and not disputed that the petitioner in each petition is aggrieved by the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling On Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No. 27 of 1961) as amended and in issue.3. At the outset it must be stated that in Special Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-23-1976
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR449
Chandurkar, J.1. This group of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises a common question relating to the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 (Act III of 1976)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which came into force on January 3, 1976. Some of these petitions have been filed on the Appellate Side of this Court at Bombay and some petitions which were originally filed before the Nagpur Bench were transferred to this Court for hearing and counsel appearing in these cases from Nagpur have also been heard. Similarly, Miscellaneous Petition No. 997 of 1975 which was originally filed on the Original Side of this Court challenging the Maharashtra Debt Relief Ordinance, 1975 (VII of 1975)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') has been referred to the Division Bench to be heard along with the other petitions on the appellate side and Mr. P.A. Mehta along with Mr. H.K. Shah appeared for the petitioners in that petition. After the Ordin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-10-1976
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR125
Madon, J.1. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed on the Original Side of this High Court, Bhatt J., by his judgment and order dated November 25/26, 1975 set aside the orders dated July 15, 1975 passed by the appellant prohibiting publication of articles, reports, letters and quotations, aggregating in all to eleven in number, intended for publication in the August 1975 issue of the monthly journal the 'Freedom First' edited by the respondent. Bhatt J., also issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellant, his officers, subordinates, servants, agents and successors-in-office to withdraw or cancel the said orders and further directing the appellant to permit the publication of the said articles, reports, letters and quotations and further directing the appellant, his officers, subordinates, servants and agents to forbear from acting in furtherance or implementation of the said orders. Bhatt J., further ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent the costs of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-29-1976
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR207; 1977MhLJ389
Chandurkar, J.1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Boehringer Knoll Ltd., which is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, an important question, which has boon raised is whether persons employed in the head office and branch offices of the company and the medical representatives are covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act,-a question on which there is some divergence of judicial opinion in some of the High Courts in the country. The company admittedly owns a factory situate at Kolshet Road, Thana where pharmaceutical products are manufactured and about four hundred persons are employed for that purpose. There is No. dispute that the employees working in the factory are covered by the Act and the company has been paying the necessary contribution required under the provisions of the Act. The head office of the company is situate at Bombay and it has branch offices at Madras, Delhi, Lucknow and Calcutta, where these branch offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-05-1976
Reported in : [1979]49CompCas686(Bom)
R.L. Aggarwal, J.1. This writ petition arises under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter refereed to as 'the MRTP Act'). The petitioner seeks withdrawal, cancellation and annulment of the Notice of Enquiry dated 6th December, 1974, and quashing of the order dated 25th February, 1975, passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the petitioner's application for disclosure of information, copy of the complaint and the report of the Director of Investigation, and for further and better particulars. A writ of prohibition is sought prevent the 1st and 2nd respondents from proceeding further pursuant to the said impugned Notice of Enquiry and the impugned order and from taking further steps in the matter of Restrictive Trade Practice Enquiry No. 27 of 1974. An order directing the 2nd respondent not to participate in the said enquiry and also an order directing the 1st respondent to disclose the complaint and report and to give particulars and inspection are also so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-05-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Bom42; 1978MhLJ300
ORDER1. In this creditors' petition for an order of adjudication, an interesting but neat question of law arises for determination. The question is whether the Insolvency Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims based on the provisions of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), or whether such claims must be determined by the authorised officer constituted thereunder. In a large number of cases, whether they are petitions for orders of adjudication or notice of motion for setting aside insolvency notices, thisthreshold question arises. It was therefore, considered necessary that in the above-mentioned petition, this question be tried as a preliminary question. Having regard to the pendency of the various other matters, in which this question arises, counsel for the parties thereto, were permitted to address the Court on this question, Consequently, besides the learned counsel for the petitioning creditors and the debtors herein, counsel app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-25-1976
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR441
Vaidya, J.1. The appellants, New Consolidated Construction Company Limited, filed on November 6, 1973, a petition tinder Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, praying: (a) that it may be declared that there was an arbitration agreement between them and the defendants, Glaxo Laboratories (India) Limited, as per Clause 43 of the general conditions of the contract mentioned in the petition, and that the said agreement applied to the dispute and differences which had arisen between the plaintiffs and the defendants as set out in the correspondence to the petition and also in the para. 8 of the petition; (b) that it may be ordered that the said agreement be filed in Court and the disputes be referred to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement; and (e) that the defendants be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs costs of the petition.2. The allegations made in the petition may be briefly summarised as under:The appellants, referred to as the plaintiffs, in the petition, number...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-19-1976
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR175
Shah, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India raises a question of some importance regarding the scope and ambit of Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as 'the new Code.'2. The facts giving rise to this petition are few and may be stated thus : On June 6, 1975, respondent No. 3 Harchandrai Vanjumal Santani filed an application before the Executive Magistrate, who is respondent No. 2 to this petition, under Section 145 of the new Code against the petitioners. The dispute regarding possession relates to shop premises admeasuring 6' 6' known as 'Lalit Ladies' Own Store' at Shop No. 1, Raut Chawl, Opposite Sitladevi Temple, Mahim. The respondent No. 2 passed, thereon a preliminary order under Section 145(1) as he was satisfied that there was a dispute between the parties likely to cause a broach of the peace concerning the said premises. On June 13, 1975, the respondent No. 3 made another application to attach the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-09-1976
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1270
Deshmukh, J.1. These two petitions arise out of an order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 1/P of 1972 on an application dated 3rd February 1975 by original accused No. 1. The order was passed on 18th July 1975, Against that order original accused No. 1 went in revision to the Court of Session, Greater Bombay, being Criminal Revision Application No 242 of 1975. That application was disposed of on 1st October 1975. Being aggrieved by this final order giving certain directions original accused No. 2 has filed Criminal Application No. 442/76 and original accused No. 1 has filed Criminal Application No. 909/76. Though the points of view of the parties involved are different, the arguments are common and they are addressed against the same order of the learned Magistrate as varied by the Addl. Sessions Judge. Hence these petitions are heard together and will be disposed of by this common order.2. The relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these petitions a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-09-1976
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR394
Deshmukh, J.1. These two petitions arise out of an order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 1/P of 1972 on an application dated February 3, 1975 by original accused No. 1. The order was passed on July 18, 1975.. Against that order original accused No. 1 went in revision to the Court of Session, Greater Bombay, being Criminal Revision Application No. 242 of 1975. That application was disposed of on October 1, 1975. Being aggrieved by this final order giving certain directions original accused No. 2 has filed Criminal Application No. 442 of 1976 and original accused No. 1 has filed Criminal Application No. 909 of 1976. Though the points of view of the parties involved are different, the arguments are common and they are addressed against the same order of the learned Magistrate as varied by the Additional Sessions Judge. Hence these petitions are heard together and will be disposed of by this common order.2. The relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the...
Tag this Judgment!