Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-24-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR546; 2008(3)BomCR408; (2008)110BOMLR951
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. On 21st March, 2008, we observed world 'forest' day. On 23rd March, 2008 in Maharashtra we observed 'Tukaram Beej'. That is the day on which Saint Tukaram, a Seventeeth Century Poet, regarded by many as the greatest in Marathi language, left for his Nirvana. Eachone of us has forgotten his apt remark and observation regarding a forest, the Trees and the creatures. He says:Trees, creepers and the creatures of the forest Are my kith and kin And birds that sweetly sing This is bliss! How I love being alone! Here I am beyond good and evil Commit no sinThe sky is my canopy, the earth my throne. My mind is free to dwell wherever it will. A piece of cloth, one all purpose bow! Take care of all my bodily needs.The wind tells me the time. Translated from original Marathi by Dilip Chitre, Penguin Classics, 1991.Reciting these lines today is like talking of other world. At least, the land owners and all those claiming through them think so. We rest here and say nothing mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-05-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)ALLMR663; (2008)110BOMLR1730
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the process adopted by the Respondent No. 3 beginning with the Expression of Interest and followed by issuance of Request for Proposal and culminating in the award of contract initially to Respondent No. 4 and then to the Respondent No. 5. 2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office in New Mumbai. According to the Petitioner No. 1, it is engaged in the business of operating and running duty Free Retail Outlets in International Airports in India. The Respondent No. 1 is the union of India and the Respondent No. 2 is Airports Authority of India constituted under Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. According to the Petitioners, the Respondent No. 2 is owned and controlled by the Respondent No. 1. The International Airport at Mumbai i.e. Chhatrapati Shivaji International...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-08-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)MhLj97
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.Introduction1. Marcus Tullius Cicero, a great orator and Roman Attorney said, 'The solidity of a State is very largely bound up with its judicial decisions'. The stability of State governance is relatable to the status of public law and order in the State. Protection to person and property of State subjects is the primary obligation of the State and this is the great significance of administration of criminal justice delivery system. Criminal jurisprudence governing the law of crime primarily has two concepts like any other legal jurisprudence:(i) Substantive criminal law; and(ii) Procedural criminal law.Provisions of substantive criminal law which are primarily penal in nature are subjected to rule of strict interpretation, while those relating to procedural law are guided by rules of plain and liberal interpretation. The Court, in the present cases, is concerned with the application of rules of interpretation to the procedural law particularly relating to the fie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-10-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)BomCR183
Dalvi Roshan, J.1. The original plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 were the heirs of one Prakash Nagindas Parekh, who expired on 20th February, 1984 in KEM Hospital, Mumbai. Plaintiff No. 1 expired pending the Suit. Plaintiffs 1 (a) to 1(b) are the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff No. 1 along with plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs claim damages from the defendant upon the tort of negligence.2. The defendant is a qualified practising Surgeon. The aforesaid Prakash Nagindas Parekh (the deceased) suffered from a condition called hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating). He was under the treatment of the defendant who had performed a surgery medically called upper Dorsal or Cervical Sympathectomy which is a surgery to be performed on the hands (upper limbs) to alleviate the said medical condition. Sympathectomy is a surgical excision of a part of the nervous system which causes hyperhidrosis. It is the plaintiffs' case that the defendant was negligent during course of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-10-2008
Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR565; 2008(6)BomCR59; (2008)110BOMLR2370
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. A simple but question of some legal importance falls for consideration in the present Appeal. What is the scope of judicial discretion of a Court trying a Suit on the Original Side of this Court with reference to Rules 89 to 91 and 265 of the High Court, Original Side, Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') read with Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 It is a settled canon of civil jurisprudence that wide discretion is vested with the Court and with the aid of its inherent powers Court can pass orders which may be necessary to achieve the ends of justice. The rules of procedural law are not to scuttle the rights of the parties at the threshold of the proceedings unless an indefeasible right is vested in the other side and it will cause great injustice or prejudice to that party. Exercise of such judicial discretion has to be in consonance with the settled principles of law, amongst which, it is also a settled principle o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-31-2008
Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR743
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Where some of the buildings constructed prior to 1940 on a large municipal plot are occupied by the tenants, whether the Municipal Corporation would be justified in permitting the developer appointed by the tenants to redevelop the entire plot under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 instead of permitting redevelopment either by subdividing the plot or developing the plot under Regulation 33(9) is the question raised in this petition.2. The dispute in the present case relates to the redevelopment of a large plot belonging to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation ('Corporation' for short) admeasuring 12130.07 sq. mtrs. bearing C.S. No. 17/47 (part) of Lower Parel Division situated at Dr. E.Moses Road, Worli Naka, G/South Ward, Mumbai - 400 018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'plot in question').3. On the plot in question, the Corporation had constructed several buildings prior to 1940, some of which are occupied by the municipal tenan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-11-2008
Reported in : 2008(111)BomLR261; [2009]151CompCas358(Bom); [2009]89SCL169(Bom)
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. These petitions impugn the order passed on 4.10.2006 by the additional Chief These petitions impugn the order passed on 4.10.2006 by the additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum and by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 509 of 2004. After the Writ Petition No. 2739 of 2006 was argued, an application was made on behalf of Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 254 of 2008 that the writ petition should be adjourned in order to permit the Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 to address the Court. The petitions involve the same issue. The parties were aware that they were being heard together and therefore, ought to have been ready to argue the matter immediately after the first petition was over. I have, therefore, refused the adjournment.2. The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are public limited companies; Petitioner No. 2, being a subsidiary of Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the `SIL') was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-26-2008
Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR388; 2008(4)BomCR522; 2008(4)MhLj843
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Perplexed due to alleged divergent views expressed by two Division Benches of this Court viz. Bombay Enamel Works v. Purshottam : AIR1975Bom128 and D. Shanalal v. Bank of Maharashtra : AIR1989Bom150 , on the question whether appellants are entitled to challenge the order passed by Court granting conditional leave to defend under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code while assailing the final decree passed in summary suit on the ground of non-compliance of conditional order, another Division Bench referred the question to larger Bench. While answering the reference, we do not find any conflict of views in the two Division Bench judgments and find that propriety, legality or correctness of an interlocutory order granting conditional leave or refusing leave to defend the Suit could be challenged by the aggrieved party in an appeal preferred against the final decree provided that the party had not unsuccessfully challenged that order during the pendency of proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-25-2008
Reported in : 2009ACJ585; 2008(6)MhLj941
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.Relevant Facts:1. Mohd. Riyazur Rehman Siddiqui met with an accident on 30th September 1986 on Bidar-Udgir road while he was driving a motor-cycle No. MZV-6233. According to him, while he was driving the vehicle at a very moderate speed, the driver of jeep bearing No. MZV-6437 who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently gave a dash to the motor-cycle and resultantly he sustained injuries. A case under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code was registered with the Police Station, Udgir. The Appellant resultantly of the accident sustained permanent disability to the extent of 48%. He filed a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being Case No. 26, of 1987 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, which was contested and decided finally by the Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 5th May 1989 awarding compensation of Rs. 51,000/- only with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the claim petition. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-04-2008
Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR2183
B.H. Marlapalle and R.Y. Ganoo, JJ.1. Heard Mr. Tulpule with Mr. Mankapure the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. Rule. Respondents waive service. The petition has been finally heard.3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12/10/2007 issued by the Government of Maharashtra through the Department of Law and Judiciary in exercise of its powers under Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and by the said order the respondent No. 7 has been appointed as 'Special Public Prosecutor' for conducting Sessions Case No. 41 of 2006 pending before the Sessions Court at Islampur in Sangli District. By a subsequent order dated 18/12/2007 issued through the Department of Home, the State Government has fixed the professional fees and directed to be paid from the Government funds as under:(a) Per day appearance : Rs. 15,000/-(b) Consultation (for every day) : Rs. 3,000/-(subject to maximum ofRs. 15,000/-).(c) Lodging and Boarding, per : Rs. 3,500/-day.4. The appointment has b...
Tag this Judgment!