Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Feb-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. By these petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging validity of the Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as œthe Act?) being unconstitutional. The petitioners have, in the alternative, prayed for striking down Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 24 of the Act. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petitions, in brief, are as under : The petitioner M/s. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, which is a partnership firm, was constituted originally by eight partners. Since dispute arose between the partners, the partnership firm came to be dissolved in January 1974. A suit for dissolution of partnership and for accounts was filed in 1974 being Special Civil Suit No.9/1974, which is pending before the competent Civil Court. In the said suit, Receivers came to be appointed from time to time in respect of properties of the partnership firm. The partnership ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-03-2014
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The Honourable the Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench in order to resolve a conflict between the conflicting views which have been expressed by two Division Benches of this Court. In our detailed order dated 24th April, 2014 we noticed that conflict and by consent of parties we formulated the questions which have to be answered by us. They read as under:- (1) Does Section 3(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 save the orders of exemption including all terms and conditions thereof passed under Section 20(1) of the Principal Act, namely, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and all actions taken there-under? (2) Whether, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 apply to the repeal of the Principal Act by the Repealing Act, 1999? (3) Whether in view ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-20-2014
1. As substantially common questions of law and fact arise in these batch of Petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. All these Writ Petitions take exception to the Awards made by the 1st and 10th Labour Courts, Mumbai. The Labour Courts have denied the relief of reinstatement to the dismissed workmen. However, compensation / back wages in the range of Rs.2 Lacs to Rs.6 Lacs came to be awarded to most of the workmen involved in the dispute. 3. The Writ Petition No.1892 of 2008 has been preferred by the Union objecting to denial of reinstatement or in the alternate urging that the compensation / back wages awarded is not commensurate. The rest of the Writ Petitions have been preferred by the employer, contending that no relief whatsoever ought to have been granted in favour of the union / workmen. 4. For the sake of convenience, the particulars of the References, workmen involved therein, relief granted etc. are set out in the chart beneath :- 1st LABO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-17-2014
V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. What is the period of limitation for preferring an Appeal against a final order passed by the Family Court Is it 90 days as stipulated in Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide amendment by Act 50 of 2003 which had come into force with effect from 23.12.2003 or is it 30 days as stipulated under Section 19(3) of the Family Courts Act This is the only question which arises for consideration before us in this application. 2. A brief reference to the vital facts in the background of which this question arises appears to be necessary and they are as under: The applicant and the respondent are both Hindus and were married as per Hindu Vedic rites and ceremonies. Thereafter disputes arose between the parties and the applicant-wife filed Petition A-849 of 2011 before the Family Court at Mumbai seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The respondent-husband filed Petition No. D-68 of 2011 for custody of 2 minor daughters. Both the petitions were disposed of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-09-2014
1. Petitioners in Arbitration Petition No. 259 of 2013 are the original claimants in the arbitration proceedings and seek a declaration that the arbitration award dated 30th January, 2013 is enforceable as a decree of this court and seeks enforcement of the said award under sections 44 to 49 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Act). Respondents to this petition are the original respondents in the arbitration proceedings. Arbitration Petition No. 406 of 2013 is filed by the original respondents to the arbitration proceedings under section 34 of the said Act inter alia praying for setting aside the partial award dated 7th December, 2009 and partial final award dated 30th January, 2013. The petitioners in Arbitration Petition No. 259 of 2013 i.e. Perma Container (UK) Line Ltd. are hereinafter referred to as the claimant. The original respondents i.e. Perma Container Line (India) Pvt. Ltd. are hereinafter referred to as the respondent. Some of the relevant fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-29-2014
1. By an order dated 8th February 2010 passed by this Court, this Court framed the following preliminary issue : "Whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide the originating summons which has been taken out by the plaintiff in view of the suit being filed in the Small Causes Court under Section 41 of the said Act after the originating summons was filed?" 2. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have accordingly addressed this Court on the preliminary issue framed by this Court. None of the parties have led oral evidence on the preliminary issue. Since the issue of jurisdiction is raised by the defendant, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant addressed this Court first followed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this preliminary issue are as under:- 3. Defendant is a lessor of a large piece of land admeasuring 48057 sq. yards described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. By an Indenture of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-22-2014
By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner seeks an order and direction against respondents to deposit monies to the extent of the claims of the petitioner under Share Subscription Agreement and Share Holders Agreement including the investment of approximately US$ 60 million and cost and/or in the alternative to provide adequate and satisfactory security in regard to the claims of the petitioner. Petitioner also claims disclosure of all the assets, moneys, bank deposits and accounts held by the respondents singly or jointly and/or severally including but not limited to the accounts with Corporation Bank by an affidavit. Petitioner seeks injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with their assets including bank accounts with Corporation Bank. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2 (a) Petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of Mauritius and has its registered offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-07-2014
RevatiMohie Dere, J. 1. Rule was granted in this petition on 4th January, 2013 and by way of an ad-interim relief, the trial of the petitioners was not to proceed until further orders. As Rule on interim relief was made returnable in March, 2013, and considering the narrow controversy involved in the petition, we have taken up this petition itself for final disposal with the consent of the parties. 2. Heard learned Counsel Shri S.V. Kotwal for the petitioners, Mr. S. M. Kamble for respondent No.1 and Ms. Usha Kejriwal, A.P.P. for the State. 3. This petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'), takes exception to the order dated 24th April, 2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpalgaon (B), Taluka Niphad, District“ Nashik, directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, after recording verification of the complainant, in Criminal...
Tag this Judgment!